Smurraftr JhmniaftmtH 


A Brief Disquisition of the 
Fundamental Principles of 
Popular Government 

by 

J. ULRICH 


Price 10 Cents 



MILWAUKEE: 

CO-OPERATIVE PRINTERY 
544 SIXTH STREET 


I 


1907 












. 

> 

I . 

; 


' 






. 












' 

* 

























. 

























J 










■it 


DEMOCRATIC 

FOUNDATIONS 








/ 



















I 









/ 









■% 


* . 






























■ 


• * 
















■I 













































\ 


i^mnrrattr Jlmmimfuma 


A Brief Disquisition of the 

« 

Fundamental Principles of 
Popular Government 


by 


J. ULRICH 




MILWAUKEE: 

CO-OPERATIVE PRINTERY 
344 SIXTH STREET 
1907 


/ 








4 















(library Of CONQKESSjj 
Two Copies Hecewea 

DEC 12 190? 

Coi>*rt«ril tntry 
i » t. i <? 6 7 
| CLASS A XXc. No= 
[qU( 73 
'copy b, 


Copyright, 1907, 
By J. ULRICH. 







FOREWORD 

This little volume appears as the result of careful thot and 
reflection on the aims and purposes of government. Starting 
from fundamental principles and carrying the deductions to 
their legitimate logical conclusions, the author has endeavored 
to outline a practical system of popular government that, if 
consistently carried out, would secure to the individual the 
greatest possible measure of freedom and liberty consistent with 
an equal degree of liberty and freedom of his fellowman. 

Thej indulgent reader need not be surprised when he discov¬ 
ers that the conclusions arrived at are not always in accord with 
present prevailing political and economic institutions, in as 
much as the latter are often nothing more than mere relics of 
barbarism bequeathed to us by a savage ancestry of long ago. 

The maxim that “Whatever is, is right” has no standing in 
the domain of reason or logic, and unless our political and eco¬ 
nomic institutions can stand the test of reason and logic—unless 
they conform to sound principles and are administered in a 
spirit of candor and fairness—they can not serve the ends of 
truth, justice and equity, and must ultimately perish. But, in 
their downfall, institutions based on error and iniquity may 
drag with them such other institutions as are salient factors of 
truth and justice, thereby endangering, for the.time being, the 
equipoise of government. 

It is the duty of every generation to conserve and perfect 
those civic and economic institutions that make for a higher and 
fuller civilization and to abolish or reform those that are based 
on error and are therefore antagonistic to the Golden Rule. 
In accordance with the Law of Being, like must produce like; 
hence error, in whatever form it may appear, will multiply 
until it finally destroys its own embodiment. Therefore, it is 
our mission to search intelligently for the spirit, the underlying 
principles, of all human relations, with a view toward compre¬ 
hending it and invoking its aid for the cause of truth, justice 
and equity. That this little volume may be instrumental in in¬ 
spiring the great army of truth-seekers, who are earnestly en¬ 
deavoring to comprehend and establish those fundamental prin¬ 
ciples so indispensable to the consummation of a truly popular 
government, a government “of the people, for the people aftd 
by the people,” is the fondest desire of 

Milwaukee, August, 1907. THE AUTHOR. 


7 


CONTENTS 

Chapter. 

Foreword - - - - - - 5 

I. The Necessity of Government - - - 9 

II. The Source of Governmental Authority and Power 14 

III. The Proper Scope of Government - - - 18 

IV. Land and the Natural Resources 22 

V. Production and Distribution - - - - 27 

VI. The Theory of Value ----- 32 

VII. The Standard of Value - - - - - 36 

VIII. Money 40 

IX. The Purchasing Power of Money - - 47 

X. Government Bonds - - - - - 56 

XI. Government Ownership—Co-operation - - 63 

XII. The American Ideal of Government - - 67 

XIII. The Initiative and The Referendum - - - 74 

XIV. Laws --------- 80 

XV. Judges -------- 87 


8 





CHAPTER I. 


THE NECESSITY OF GOVERNMENT. 

The natural inclination of man to flock together and live 
in communities has been a potent factor in massing population 
in such favored localities in which his primary wants, food, 
shelter and clothing, could be obtained with but little expendi¬ 
ture of labor. An accumulation of population, however, creates 
an unusual demand for the free gifts of nature, so that the 
activities of one individual will soon conflict with those of his 
neighbor, inasmuch as the demands of one individual are 
very much the same as those of every other individual living in 
the same locality, and man soon realizes that in order to main¬ 
tain his life, and be secure in his possessions he must share the 
natural resources with his fellowman. 

In their struggle for existence the physically strong and 
the mentally shrewd are not slow in taking advantage of the 
weakness and inactivity of their less -assertive neighbors, thus 
calling forth a struggle for existence between the contending 
parties, which tends to destroy the peace and happiness of the 
community. The more obtuse and the more timid fail to as¬ 
sert their rights to the extent they should while the cunning 
and the shrewd, by evading their plain duty, will secure to 
themselves undue advantages at the expense of their fellow- 
men. Honesty and integrity are not always the guiding mo¬ 
tives when a scheming individual sees an opportunity to secure 
to himself or his family a special privilege to which he is 
clearly not entitled. In short, causes and occasions for con¬ 
flict and strife between inhabitants of the same locality are so 
numerous and so potent that neither life, liberty, nor property 
would be secure were it not for some generally recognized and 
enforced method of regulating, these conflicting human rela- 


9 


tions. Life, liberty and property of the individual must be 
secure in order to enable man to develop his being physically, 
mentally, morally and spiritually to the highest extent consistent 
with his talents and capacities. Only as a member of society can 
man attain his highest perfection. Isolated from his fellow- 
man he would soon lapse into a condition that would in no wise 
distinguish him from the brute creation. All those high and 
noble aspirations that lift man out of a slough of despondency 
and utter materialization would vanish were it not for this 
tendency of man to aggregate. This flocking together creates 
the necessity for government. 

Every nation is composed of two essential elements, popula¬ 
tion and territory. The prime factors of population are the 
separate individuals who inhabit a certain definite area of terri¬ 
tory and acknowledge or are forced to acknowledge the same 
governmental authority. Every individual is born with certain 
inalienable rights, chief among which are, according to the 
Declaration of Independence, life, liberty and the pursuit of 
happiness. The prime factors of a territory are the natural re¬ 
sources, comprising the areas of land and water with all of 
nature’s spontaneous gifts, such as the mineral deposits, prime¬ 
val forests and the wild animals inhabiting the land and water 
areas. 

The land, with its varied natural resources, forms the chief 
field of activity of the human family, from which man obtains 
the means of subsistence and maintenance. In their crude state 
these are the free gifts of nature to all the people who may at 
any time inhabit that territory, and therefore the natural re¬ 
sources should at all times be the common possession of the 
people, held by them in trust for the free and unrestricted use 
of every one who may wish to satisfy his natural wants by the 
application of his mental and physical powers in such a manner 
as not to ignore or disregard the equal rights of the rest of his 
fellowmen. 

In order to be able to maintain his existence, the individual 
must have the right of free access to the primary storehouses of 


io 


nature, whence he obtains the means for satisfying his material 
wants—food, clothing and shelter. These primary wants the in¬ 
dividual man can and ought to satisfy by applying his mental 
and physical powers to the natural resources, thereby changing 
them into commodities fit for use. It follows, therefore, as a 
selfevident truth that the land with all its multifarious forms of 
natural resources should be and forever remain the common 
property of all the people to be held by them in trust for the use 
and benefit of each and every individual who desires to make 
use of them in conformity with the equal rights of all the in¬ 
habitants of that locality. 

Experience teaches that man can use but a limited amount of 
the free gifts of nature without first shaping them by the appli¬ 
cation of labor into commodities fit for use. Nature compels 
him to use his mental and physical powers to shape and 
fashion the crude gifts of nature into commodities before they 
can satisfy his material wants. Whatever the individual pro¬ 
duces by the application of his powers to the natural resources 
constitutes the legitimate reward for his efforts, and the com¬ 
modities thus produced form the only legitimate objects of 
private possession. Only labor can bestow a valid original 
title to any commodity, and all derived titles which society is 
justified in recognizing must be traceable to an origin in labor, 
no matter thru how many exchanges it may have passed in the 
course of time. 

With his private possessions the individual should be per¬ 
mitted to do as he pleases; he should be allowed to dispose of 
them in accordance with the dictates of his own free will, so 
long as he does not thereby injure his fellowman, by infringing 
on, or abrogating the equal rights of others. 

It must be conceded as a self-evident fact that every in¬ 
dividual is born with the inalienable right to live, and he must be 
free should he pursue his happiness according to the dictates of 
his own will. But every right on the one hand involves a cor¬ 
responding duty on the other. In his pursuit of happiness the 
individual must therefore be guided not so much by his rights 


as by his duties. This is not always an easy matter. While 
the individual has the undisputed right to live, to enjoy liberty, 
and to pursue his happiness to the fullest extent of his 
capabilities, yet he must constantly bear in mind that every 
other individual has those same rights, too. The limit to which 
an individual may go while pursuing his happiness before he 
will infringe upon the rights of his neighbor is not always ap¬ 
parent. In a primitive state of society, where the interrelation 
of man to man is comparatively simple, the application of these 
fundamental principles may present comparatively few or no 
difficulties, but in modern society with its complex social and 
industrial institutions in which the division of labor has been 
brot to such a high state of proficiency, the application of these 
fundamental principles becomes exceedingly difficult. 

Owing to the further fact that erroneous conceptions and 
false doctrines in vogue for thousands of years have firmly 
fixed and implanted views and customs which are divorcing the 
products from the producer so absolutely, that the ordinary 
individual is no longer capable of discerning, with any degree 
of clearness, either his rights or his duties. 

Were the earth peopled by only a comparatively small num¬ 
ber of inhabitants, living widely apart, the relations existing 
between the producer and his products would be less compli¬ 
cated, inasmuch as each individual would then have to produce 
by his own efforts the food and ‘commodities he needs for his 
support, and the application of these fundamental principals 
would be a comparatively simple matter—the rights and duties 
of the individual being circumscribed by fewer and simpler 
conditions. However, this condition no longer exists, if it ever 
did exist, and in order to gain a reasonably satisfactory com¬ 
prehension of the true bearing and value of these fundamental 
principles we are compelled to reduce our complex social 
organization to simple or primitive forms, by establishing, 
theoretically, a state based upon correct and scientific prin¬ 
ciples. By assuming conditions such as any primitive race 
would present in its infancy and applying the fundamental 


12 


principles of production and distribution, a state of society 
can be conceived which would exemplify the possibilities of 
human development, as it would be if error and prejudice 
were eliminated and wisdom and forethot were its only guide. 
In order to pave the way towards a realization of this higher 
state of civilization error must be destroyed and truth take its 
place. Institutions founded upon erroneous assumption and 
false conception must be reconstructed and built up along 
correct lines. It may be necessary to take an apparently back¬ 
ward step in order to reach a sound and solid foundation 
capable of sustaining an enlarged superstructure, just as the 
builder of mansions may find it necessary to raze an old build¬ 
ing to make room for a more modern structure. 


13 


CHAPTER II. 


THE SOURCE OF GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY AND POWER- 

Parental authority, no doubt, was the first form of govern¬ 
ment recognized by the human race in its infancy. In its scope 
it must have been limited to the membership of closely related 
families, and in its nature it must have been the forerunner of 
our absolute monarchies of later days. During the progress 
of time, as families grew more numerous and increased in 
membership, they gradually merged into tribes or clans under the 
leadership of a patriarch or a chieftain, who not only assumed 
the role of leader but also that of lawgiver. Being of a barbar¬ 
ous disposition, these clans or tribes would make war upon one 
another, and, for purposes of offensive or defensive warfare, 
further consolidations would take place under the leadership 
of some bold warrior who had distinguished himself in battle. 
Exacting strict obedience in time of war, these chieftains would 
at the same time establish rules which gradually would take the 
form of law, and after the danger attendant on war was over¬ 
come the leader would still retain his authority, and thus be¬ 
come a lawgiver to his followers. By conquest a powerful tribe 
would increase its membership as well as the area of its terri¬ 
tory, and the bringing together of different tribes under one 
leadership undoubtedly had a tendency to modify the laws and 
customs of either or both. A conquered people may have 
stipulated certain rights and privileges as a condition of sur¬ 
render, which privileges thus became a part of the laws, and 
gradually the idea of absolute authority of the leader or chief¬ 
tain would become a matter of dispute, even among the original 
subjects. There is no doubt that, after a chieftain had once 
established his right to rule, he would resort to all sorts of de¬ 
vices and inventions calculated to enlarge and extend his au- 


14 


thority, which he could easily accomplish in view of the ig¬ 
norance and superstition of his subjects. Religious scruples 
on the part of the masses would be seized upon with avidity by 
the rulers to secure and bolster up their claim to leadership, as 
i<= evidenced, even at the present day, by the claim of the mon- 
archs of the old world, that their right to govern was derived 
directly from God, a form of superstition against which science 
and education has been battling in vain these many years. It is 
therefore highly probable that the absolute monarchy was 
among the first, if not the first regularly instituted form of 
government, and that other forms grew out of this. A some¬ 
what modified form of monarchy we find among the early 
Jews, who acknowledged as their head and king Jehovah, God. 
Such a government is known as “Theocracy.” Another form 
of government, in which the authority is vested in the wealthy 
only is known as “Plutocracy.” Not until a nation had attained 
a fairly high degree of civilization were the common people ac¬ 
corded any right to determine and establish their system of 
government. A government which recognizes the people as the 
source of authority is called a “Democracy.” The idea has also 
been advanced that all government is an unnecessary evil, that 
every individual should be a sufficient law unto himself and 
that “Anarchy,” no government, is the ideal condition under 
which the human family should exist. 

Arranging these various forms of government in a logical 
order, we have: 

a) Anarchy; 

b) Tribal relation; 

c) Monarchy; 

d) Theocracy; 

e) Plutocracy; 

f) Democracy. 

But when we come to examine into the real nature of all 
of these forms of government, we discover that, after all, the 
power rests with the people. No form of government can 
exist without the conscious or unconscious support of the peo- 


i5 


pie. Whenever a government, be it monarchy or democracy, 
theocracy or plutocracy, fails to recognize the needs and de¬ 
mands of the people, it will soon vanish from the earth. Sta¬ 
bility and endurance of a government depends upon the national 
ideal as reflected by the will of the people, or at least a majority 
of them. Every nation, therefore, enjoys that form of govern¬ 
ment which conforms to the national ideal prevalent among 
the majority of its people. The better educated the masses of 
the people of a country are, the greater the sumtotal of wis¬ 
dom and enlightenment disseminated among the masses, the 
more perfect will be their government; for the laws and insti¬ 
tutions of a nation in their ultimate analysis will but reflect the 
combined wisdom of its inhabitants. Democracy is the highest, 
most perfect form of government, since it recognizes the rights 
of all the people to have a voice in its formation and ad¬ 
ministration. All other forms, except anarchy, which means 
“no government,” are based upon the idea that a part is greater 
than the whole, in other words, that the wisdom'of one indi¬ 
vidual is superior to the combined wisdom of all the people; 
that some other person is better able and more capable to judge 
of what is necessary to insure my happiness than I am myself. 

These various forms of government are not always clearly 
and sharply defined. A monarchy may have democratic fea¬ 
tures, while a democracy may be vitiated with monarchical 
tendencies and institutions. It is a generally conceded fact that 
we do not find a perfect type of a democratic form of govern¬ 
ment at present. Switzerland approaches nearest to an ideal 
democracy, while the much-lauded and highly praised govern¬ 
ment of our own country, the United States, is simply a copy of 
the English monarchy with a few features changed and des¬ 
ignated by a different nomenclature. The cardinal principle of 
perfect democracy, the right of the people to pass upon their 
laws before they become operative, is missing in the govern¬ 
ment of the United States. In a perfect democracy every adult 
individual of sound mind who is a member of the body politic 
should be accorded an opportunity to pass upon every law be- 


16 


fore the same goes into effect. Only under such conditions can 
laws and institutions be established which will bring about the 
greatest good for the greatest number. The will of the people, 
as determined by a full and perfectly free expression, constitutes 
the only supreme authority of a nation, and no government is 
•justifiable which fails to recognize this by making adequate 
provisions for a free and easy expression of “the will of the 
people.” 


1 7 


CHAPTER III. 


THE SCOPE OF GOVERNMENTAL POWER AND AUTHORITY. 

The peaceful and orderly regulation of the multifarious re¬ 
lations existing among mankind is the proper function of gov¬ 
ernments. But, we may ask, what are these multifarious rela¬ 
tions that may properly come under public regulation? Ac¬ 
cording to their sources we may roughly classify them into two 
general categories, social and industrial. Every person has the 
right to live, be free and pursue happiness. Man maintains 
his life, under normal conditions, by applying his powers to 
the natural resources. In this he must be perfectly free, i. e., 
the individual must enjoy the utmost freedom to determine “the 
How and the When” for himself. In the struggle for existence, 
however, the. strong are prone to crush the weak, unless re¬ 
strained by the strong arm of government. As a rule govern¬ 
ments should not perform for the individual what he can, by 
proper application, do for himself; yet it is riot an easy matter to 
determine the exact scope and limit of government interference. 
It is safe, however, to state that the scope of governmental 
authority and obligation must be extensive enough to secure to 
each individual the possibility of securing and maintaining life, 
liberty and the pursuit of happiness. If conditions arise under 
which it becomes difficult or impossible for the individual to 
maintain his life or to preserve his liberty it at once becomes 
the duty of the government to come to his rescue by changing 
these conditions and instituting such others as will secure to 
him these rights. Cases may arise where it will become neces¬ 
sary for the government to enter the productive industries in 
competition with private individuals, or even to assume exclu¬ 
sive control. If a majority of the legally qualified voters de¬ 
mand that the government take charge of a certain industry, 

18 


and conduct it for the benefit of all the inhabitants, no valid 
reason exists why the government should not carry out the 
will of the people.” It may be said that it is just as much the 
duty of the government to provide wholesome conditions un¬ 
der which the individual can maintain his life and liberty as 
it is the duty of the government to protect the inhabitants 
against insurrection, or against oppression by some foreign 
power, even tho it be necessary for the government to assume 
exclusive control of all industries. In short, the government is 
in duty bound to regulate all affairs of man which a majority 
may demand. For this purpose adequate provisions should 
obtain in every nation, and therefore it is essential that all per¬ 
sons be absolutely equal before the law; suffrage should be ex¬ 
tended to all individuals who have attained to the proper age, 
are of sound mind, and have not forfeited this right on account 
of crime or other good and sufficient reasons. To deny the 
right of suffrage to any inhabitant simply on account of sex, 
color or property is unjustifiable; neither should this right be 
made dependent upon an arbitrary educational qualification. 

While we have conceded that it is the primary object of 
government to secure to all an equal right to life, liberty and 
the pursuit of happiness, yet it is not within the province of 
governments to prescribe to the individual how or by what 
means he shall maintain his life, what use he shall make of his 
liberty, or how he shall pursue his happiness, so long as the in¬ 
dividual thereby does not contravene the equal rights of his 
fellowman. In determining this question the individual must 
be guided by his rights and duties, as well as the rights and 
duties of others. If in their activities individuals come in con¬ 
flict with one another and can not find an amicable settlement, 
government steps in and regulates affairs in accordance with 
the expressed will of the people as laid down in the laws of the 
nation. 

In the preamble to the Constitution of the United States the 
objects of government are set forth as follows: 

“We, the people of the United States, in order to form a 


19 


more perfect union, establish justice, ensure domestic tran¬ 
quility, provide for the common defense, promote the general 
welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our 
posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the 
United States of America.” 

Here the various relations existing among individuals as 
well as nations have been summarized. “We, the people,”' 
shows that the founders of the Constitution of the United 
States were of the opinion that government should be estab¬ 
lished and enacted by the people and for the people, and that 
the authority of enacting and enforcing the laws should abide 
in the people. However, they failed to clearly establish this 
authority, because certain vital principles, upon which popular 
government must rest, have been omitted from the Constitu¬ 
tion, and hence the noble ideal they had in view has not been 
reached. One of the cardinal principles omitted from the Con¬ 
stitution of the United States, and as far as this is concerned, 
from every other constitution, is the one according to which all 
natural resources must be, and forever remain, public property. 
Therefore nearly all the land, with its boundless wealth, has 
passed into private possession, and to the greater number of in¬ 
habitants the free access to the natural reasources is denied. 
Another vital error was committed by the framers of the Con¬ 
stitution when they omitted to vest the enactment of all laws in 
the hands of the people, owing to the fact, undoubtedly, that 
they took the government of Great Britain as a model. Owing 
partly to these defects in the fundamental laws of the land, and 
partly to the faulty system of industrial exchanges in vogue 
ior centuries, a comparatively small number of inhabitants have 
been successful in securing special privileges by means of which 
they can exploit the masses. 

In order that a law shall be efficient and a true rule of ac¬ 
tion, it must have the moral and spiritual support of at least a 
majority of the people, otherwise it will soon degenerate to a 
mere dead letter on the statute book, to be resurrected only 
when a set of arbitrary officials wish to thwart the will of the 


20 


majority in the interest of a minority. Laws enacted by a 
minority are an unbearable imposition on the majority, and 
when enforced result in oppression and tyranny. The method 
of enacting laws in vogue in the United States at the present 
time practically enables a small number of representatives and 
senators to enact the laws for the nation in palpable violation 
of the majority rule. In a democratic form of government all 
laws should be enacted by what is known as the principle of the 
initiative and referendum, which provides that laws shall not 
become operative before they have received the express sanc¬ 
tion of a majority of the legally qualified voters. 

It is perfectly proper that the lawmaking body be composed 
of a comparatively small number of duly elected delegates, 
chosen with due regard for their qualifications and knowledge 
of the needs and desires of their constituents, inasmuch as 
their duties as lawmakers consist solely in giving form and 
contents to desirable propositions. The enactment of these 
laws is, and must remain, the sole privilege of the people. All 
propositions, when so desired by a respectable minority of the 
people, after the lawmakers have determined on the form and 
contents of the same, should be submitted to the people for 
their approval or rejection. No proposition should become a 
law that has not received the sanction of a majority of all the 
legally qualified voters of the district for which the law is in¬ 
tended. Whether or not the referendum shall be optional or 
mandatory is a matter which the people should determine. It 
may not be desirable to take an actual vote on a proposition to 
which there is no manifest objection; such a bill might become 
a law after the expiration of an interim, without a vote upon it 
by the people. Every bill should be published during an in¬ 
terim to give the people an opportunity to study the bill and to 
raise objections in case the bill does not meet their expectations. 


21 


CHAPTER IV. 


LAND. 

Man is essentially a land animal. He can not possibly 
maintain his existence without having access to the land in 
some form or other. By the term “Land” I mean the surface 
of the earth, including the water-areas as well as the portions 
of dry land. In its most comprehensive meaning land includes 
everything that nature offers spontaneously, either on, above or 
below the surface of the land and water areas. It includes all 
those material factors on which man exercises his powers in 
his struggle for existence, and which are usually included in 
the term “natural resources.” Land, with its illimitable quan¬ 
tities of undisturbed mineral, vegetable and animal wealth, is 
the free gift of nature to all the inhabitants of the earth, con¬ 
stituting the field of operation where man works out his destiny 
according to such ideals as he may be capable of conceiving and 
comprehending. He finds these things present when born into 
this world, and when he dies he leaves everything behind, even 
his ideals. He brings nothing into this world, neither can 
he take aught with him when he answers his last summons, 
but while he sojourns among the living he is continually de¬ 
pendent upon the bounties of nature for his welfare and natural 
existence. The fact that he is born into this world secures to 
him the inherent right of free access to the bounties of nature, 
a right which frequently is violated by organized society. How 
near in the future this right will be universally acknowledged 
and guaranteed by society is as yet a matter of mere conjecture, 
inasmuch as man is a creature governed largely by habit and 
custom, rather than by principle, and progress toward higher 
ideals of justice and equity is therefore a matter of exceedingl) 
slow growth. According to present and past customs, every so- 


22 


called civilized race has suffered land and, with it, the natural 
resources to become private property to be held by the few in 
violation of the rights of the many. It is only among the wild 
and barbaric nations where land is still the common property 
of the people, and where the individual has the free and unre¬ 
stricted use thereof. 

Private possession of land is indefensible. If it were right 
and just for one man to own even one square foot of land to 
the exclusion of all other individuals, then it would be right and 
just that one man or a coterie of men should own as private 
property the entire earth, compelling the rest of the population 
to exist only by the sufferance of the few landowners, and 
the inalienable right to life, liberty and happiness would become 
a mere farce, as no person can enjoy liberty who is dependent 
upon the good will of another for his very existence. How¬ 
ever, it may be contended that this is an impossible assumption, 
condition that could never be realized in fact, and that my 
line of argument is therefore chimerical in its nature and of no 
force. While I will admit that its actual realization is extremely 
improbable at present, yet this improbability exists only in the 
degree, not in the essence, of the supposition. But let us 
approach this question from a different basis and see whether 
we will not arrive at the same conclusion by logical deductions. 
I have stated that the only proper objects of private possession 
are the products of labor, and every sane person must concede 
the soundness of this principle. This being granted, it follows 
that land can not be a proper object of private possession, inas¬ 
much as no individual or aggregation of individuals can produce 
even so much as a square inch of land, no matter in what direc¬ 
tion or to what extent they may apply their mental or physical 
powers. The title to the land must therefore be vested in the 
totality of the population, or the nation, and not in the 
individual. • However, every individual is entitled to share in 
the legitimate use of the land, and inasmuch as different 
individuals may desire to use the same piece of land at the 
same time it is apparent that the proper use of the land must 


23 


be regulated by the nation. Since the land is the property 
of the nation, the nation must devise a system under which the 
individual may secure to himself the use of so much of the land 
as he can work himself, or which may be necessary for his 
maintenance. After securing the use of an area of land, the 
individual should be secure in the use of that land so long as 
he desires to make legitimate use thereof, and when he dies, or 
relinquishes his claim, the government may assign or let it to 
another. Whatever the individual produces by his labor on 
that land becomes his private property, therefore the nation 
must acquire all permanent improvements made by the individ¬ 
ual upon the land, at the time he relinquishes his right of use. 
As a matter of justice and equity the individual should receive 
due compensation for all actual values which the government 
acquires from him, and the modus operandi by which these 
transfers shall be made, as well as the method by which the use 
of the land may be apportioned to those individuals who desire 
to acquire it, should be clearly determined and fully set forth by 
the government, so that full and complete justice and equity 
may prevail, based upon the principle that he who produces 
value of any kind should also have the sole right to determine 
.and direct its disposition. 

But land is now largely private property; a comparatively 
small proportion only of the land and the natural resources are 
still in the hands of the government. The custom of allowing 
land to become private property has been in vogue for centuries, 
recognized and sanctioned by all civilized races. Therefore a 
violent or abrupt change in the tenure of land would entail 
injustice and hardship upon many who have invested their 
surplus savings in land and real estate in good faith. Therefore 
a plan must be devised by which a gradual change from the 
present system to the rational can be effected, which will grad¬ 
ually and without violent upheaval transfer the title to lands 
no.w held by private individuals and corporations to the national 
government. This change from one system to the other should 
be effected so slowly and gradually that all would have ample 


24 


opportunity to arrange their affairs in conformity with the new 
order of things, without doing violence to justice and equity. . 

The general government at present collects duties on im¬ 
ported goods and imposes excises on certain manufactures in 
order to obtain funds to defray the expenses of the government, 
and to secure the necessary internal improvements. The present 
system of tariff could be abolished, as it is simply a drag on 
commerce and industry, protecting neither the consumer nor 
the producer, but simply enabling the employer of labor to ex¬ 
tort a higher price for his products, without being obliged to 
pay correspondingly higher wages to his employes. In place of 
these incomes the national government could lay a tax upon the 
use of the land which would becoine a rental-fee as fast as the 
land became public property. 

A law prohibiting the transmittal of land by inheritance or 
purchase would bring practically all land into the possession of 
the government within a generation, and the government would 
simply have to reimburse the heirs for the actual improvements 
on the same. As soon as a tract of land reverts to the govern¬ 
ment the tax thereon would cease and a rental-fee take its 
place. This rental-fee should be based upon the value of the 
land as determined from time to time. 

Objections to this theory may be raised on the ground that 
it conflicts with the fundamental principle of justice and equity. 
Let us investigate this proposition a little closer, and see 
whether or not a real injustice would result to any individual. 
According to the principle that every individual is entitled to 
own as private property all that he has produced by his own 
efforts, it follows that no heir is entited to inherit land, it being 
a natural resource. The present owner, who may have expend¬ 
ed labor and wealth in acquiring the same, being dead, can not 
be injured by an escheat of his land holdings, while his legit¬ 
imate private property would still be inherited by his heirs. Of 
course the* government should make provisions to indemnify the 
heirs of all landowners for the permanent improvements they 
have made on their holdings. The value of land depends not on 


25 


the improvements made thereon by the casual owner, but on the 
increase of population; therefore the heirs or owners of a tract 
of land are not entitled to the increment of land values; that 
properly belongs to the community. 

It may further be contended that such a system of land 
administration would lead to interminable complications and 
undue centralization; that the governmental officials would be 
cJothed with undue power which they would be inclined to use 
for their private aggrandizement and benefit. However, this 
need not be the case, because the entire political system could 
be constructed upon different lines. If the present monetary 
system gave way to a more rational method of effecting 
exchanges, the inordinate desire for gain would give way to 
a greater desire for co-operation and mutual helpfulness, a 
regeneration of the- race would take place and higher ideals 
of right living and greater perfection of mental, moral and 
spiritual development would result. When you bear in mind 
that the term “government” is synonymous with “people,” and 
if the representative government were based upon the principles 
of the initiative and the referendum, which subordinates all 
public officials to “the will of the people,” it would be an easy 
matter to correct any excesses or abuses committed by over- 
zealous officials, for then the people would rule in fact, not only 
in name, as is the case at present. 


26 


CHAPTER V. 


PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION. 

Man’s existence depends primarily on the natural resources 
of the earth. In his efforts to sustain life and to pursue happi¬ 
ness man operates upon the tangible materials found in nature’s 
storehouse in practicably unlimited quantities. He can only 
satisfy his physical wants by the use of these natural products 
in some form or other. However, he can use only a very limit¬ 
ed number of these free gifts of nature in their crude state; 
most of them must be prepared for use by the application of 
labor. In his onward march toward a higher civilization man 
has acquired the power of utilizing the forces of nature to 
increase the productivity of his labor, and the rank a nation 
maintains in the scale of civilization depends upon the degree 
to which he has succeeded in subduing the forces of nature and 
making them subservient to his will. 

By the application of intelligence and power, man changes 
the character and quality of nature’s crude products, molding 
them into commodities adapted for sustaining life and satisfy¬ 
ing his various material wants. The changes wrought by man 
in his effort to transform nature’s crude products into service¬ 
able commodities cover a wide range, from the simplest to the 
most complex. But, no matter how simple or how complex this 
process of transformation may be, it is due to intelligence and 
labor. All the material possessions of man, no matter how 
varied, can ultimately be traced to two primary elements, viz.: 
natural resources and labor; the first is contributed by nature, 
the second by man. In a properly organized social structure 
the natural resources should be and forever remain the common 
property of all mankind, so that every individual could have 
equal and unrestricted access to them for the purpose of satis- 


2 7 


fying his material wants. Inasmuch as nature furnishes the 
original material for commodities spontaneously, it follows that 
the material out of which commodities are produced should not 
enter as a factor in determining their value. 

Labor is the only element that can confer original title to 
any commodity. The one who applies the labor, mental or 
physical, to a natural product in order to change it into a 
serviceable commodity thereby acquires the sole original title to 
that commodity. With this commodity the producer should be 
permitted to do whatever he pleases, .so long as he thereby does 
not infringe upon, or abrogate, the equal rights of others. 
Whatever man produces by his efforts constitutes his legitimate 
wages, to the whole of which he should be entitled. Any sys¬ 
tem or condition which forces him against his free will to share 
it with any other person as a compensation for the privilege of 
obtaining access to the natural resources is unjust and un¬ 
natural. That every individual is entitled to the entire products 
of his labor must be the cardinal principle of every properly 
organized social system, and this is true, whether he exerts his 
powers singlehanded or in co-operation with some of his fellow- 
men. Equity and justice demand that no other will than his 
own should direct his activity and no other person except 
himself should determine how the products of his labor shall be 
disposed of. Modern society inflicts an injustice on the individ¬ 
ual by upholding a system of production that compels the 
laborer to share the products of his labor with someone who 
holds a portion of the natural resources as his private posses¬ 
sion. This iniquity rests primarily on two facts. First, the 
erroneous conception that land may be held as private property, 
and second, the difficulty which the problem of keeping track 
of each man's labor presents, especially in a highly organized 
state of society. 

When our forefathers first settled on this continent, they 
worked the land in common, both in Virginia and Plymouth, 
and the products were stored in public warehouses for the good 
of the community. The industrious created food for the in- 


28 


dolent, and a proper incentive to effort was wanting. The. 
result was necessarily a failure, because they had no efficient 
method of keeping track of each man’s effort, so that he might 
be rewarded accordingly. The indolent and thriftless partic¬ 
ipated equally with the diligent and frugal when it' came to the 
distribution of the spoils. 

In casting about for a remedy, their attention was quite 
naturally directed toward the old system of organized society 
then in vogue in Europe, where the land had been allotted to 
lords and barons. They had no other precedent to go by and 
thus came to the conclusion to distribute the land among the 
individual colonists, allowing each one to shift for himself as 
far as supplying his material wants was concerned. In allow¬ 
ing land to pass into private possession the pilgrim fathers 
comjnitted a fatal error, notwithstanding the fact that our 
historians point with pride to this division of land, holding it 
up as an act of great wisdom and foresight. Had our fore¬ 
fathers been truly wise and progressive, had they had a clear 
view of the fundamental principles of production and distribu¬ 
tion, they might have avoided this fatal error to all co-operation 
and devised some method of keeping an accurate account of 
each man’s effort in the production of a commodity. As it was, 
civilization took a step to the rear and made successful co¬ 
operation impossible for centuries *to come. 

But what are the fundamental principles of production and 
distribution ? There are but two: First, the product of his 
efforts must belong to the producer, and second, an even ex¬ 
change is no robbery. It seems to me eminently just that 
every individual should have full control of the products of his 
own labor; he should be the only one who shall determine how 
to dispose of the fruits of his efforts in conformity with right 
and justice. Should he desire to make an exchange of any¬ 
thing he has produced he should be guided by the law of equity 
which demands that he should give an exact equivalent for 
whatever he receives. .‘The idea of profit must be entirely elim¬ 
inated from all exchanges. If A gives to B a commodity worth 


29 


one day’s labor, B is in duty bound to return to A an exact 
equivalent in value, not necessarily identical in form, but iden¬ 
tical in value. Under such a system everyone would have all that 
he produced by his efforts, no more, no less, exactly what he is 
entitled to. ’There would then be no millionaires and no paupers, 
for everyone would have an equal opportunity to satisfy his 
material wants directly from the storehouse of nature, held 
in trust by the nation for the use of all. But how could such a 
system be brot about? How can an accurate account be kept 
with each man’s labor ? The problem does appear rather com¬ 
plex, in view of the present method of production and distribu¬ 
tion. However, if we revert to the conditions prevailing 
among the first American colonists, the problem becomes much 
more simple and not so very difficult of solution. History tells 
us that the colonists “worked the land in common and stored 
the products in public warehouses for the good of the com¬ 
munity.” 

I have previously demonstrated that labor is the only factor 
that should be considered in the valuation of a commodity. It 
is, therefore, only necessary to accurately record the efforts of 
every individual who in any way contributes to the production 
of such commodity and give him a certificate to that effect, 
when the commodity is delivered at the public storehouse. 
When the individual desires to withdraw from the public store¬ 
house any commodity for his private use, he returns an exact 
equivalent in the form of labor certificates. He can therefore 
draw out only so much as he has contributed in labor, and can 
not live upon the fat of the land by compelling others to share 
their products of labor with him, as is possible under our pres¬ 
ent social system. Whether these labor certificates be issued 
in the nomenclature of -money or time is of little consequence, 
since all money-terms must be translated into labor-terms be¬ 
fore their meaning or significance becomes intelligible. The 
highest state of culture and civilization of the human race will 
not be possible until our present monetary system has been so 
transformed that its so-called intrinsic value gives way to 


30 


purely representative value. Were the land and the natural 
resources public property, to which every individual has an 
equal right of access with every other individual, such a system 
of labor exchange would not only be feasible and practicable, 
but would be the key to unlock a civilization that is as much in 
advance of the present as the present is beyond that of the 
aborigines. 

The labor certificate would not only be the means of keep¬ 
ing an accurate account of each man’s labor, but it would at the 
same time serve as a medium of exchange that is automatic in 
its adaptation to the needs of trade, thus doing away with all 
panics and trade depressions; for every commodity in the public 
storehouse is represented by some labor certificate in some¬ 
body’s hands, and no labor certificate can be issued unless a 
commodity to cover it is deposited, so that there will always be 
as many labor certificates in circulation as there are commod¬ 
ities in the public storehouse, thus ensuring at all times a cor¬ 
rect and adequate amount of the medium of exchange and 
never a surplus. The greater the production of commodities, 
the greater the volume of the medium for their exchange, and 
if nothing is produced there will be no need of a medium of 
exchange, for then we have nothing to exchange. 


3i 


CHAPTER VI. 


THE THEORY OF VALUE. 

Every social organization, no matter how primitive, depends 
for its existence on production and distribution of some sort. 
After man began to store up supplies for his future use; after 
he had found ways and means of producing more of any one 
commodity than his immediate wants demanded, barter, a sys¬ 
tem of exchange, undoubtedly came into existence. This 
simplest of-all trade relations consists in the direct exchange of 
one article or commodity for another. Yet, simple as it is, 
barter presupposes some ability on the part of the trader of 
determining value. As to what the bases of valuation in pre¬ 
historic ages may have been is a mere matter of conjecture. 
The simpleminded savage, no doubt, had little inclination and 
less ability to formulate a theory of value. All he knew and all 
he cared for was the fact that someone else possessed some¬ 
thing which he wanted and could not get without giving some¬ 
thing that was acceptable to the owner in return. Whatever 
the owner received for his article was deemed its worth or 
value. 

In prehistoric times, when man lived largely under tribal 
relations, when war was the primary occupation of the men, 
and the burden of providing means of sustenance for the family 
was shifted onto the women and children, property was verv 
insecure and had little value. At any time one tribe might 
swoop down upon another to rob and steal whatever could not 
be hidden or carried away in flight. Since all primitive races 
show a decided tendency to adorn their person with gay colors 
and glittering objects, it is more than probable that such among 
the early races who had a surplus of property would readily 
part with some of it for a piece of shining ore or a sparkling 


32 


stone with which he might adorn his body. Upon the approach 
of an enemy, such articles could be carried away with greater 
ease than other forms of property, or they could be hidden or 
buried in some secure place to be recovered after the danger 
had blown over. “It is in these conditions/’ says G. B. DeBern- 
ardi in his book “Trials and Triumphs of Labor ” “that we must 
look for the values of precious stones, and not in any of their 
inherent qualities.” In course of time this custom grew into a 
recognition of gold and silver as mediums of exchange, which 
function was later on sanctioned and then enforced by legal 
enactments. Inasmuch as gold and silver were used to effect 
the exchange of commodities, they were finally looked upon by 
the superficial as “measures of value;” their use as a medium 
of exchange gave rise to the erroneous supposition that they 
were the means of measuring the value of labor and other 
commodities. Value is something quite intangible, in no wise 
dependent upon the material of which an object consists, it 
being abstract in its essence and based solely on human desires. 
A person desires the possession of a commodity, not on account 
of the material of which it is made, but on account of the uses 
to which he can put it, and money forms no exception to this 
rule. Even in cases where the material in a commodity may 
determine a person’s choice, it is the use to which he can put 
the commodity, or the material in it, that creates the (desire for 
its possession. Money is so universally desired because it can 
be exchanged so readily for other commodities with which our 
real or imagined wants can be satisfied. Its so-called “intrinsic 
value” never comes into consideration when money is used as a 
medium of exchange, because it has none and can have none. 
“Intrinsic” means inherent—belonging to the inner or essential 
nature of a thing—and as value or worth is a mere mental con¬ 
ception of a relation it is entirely independent of the matter or 
substance of which money may consist. Nothing can have 
“intrinsic value” as will be shown more clearly later on. The 
expression “intrinsic value” no doubt grew out of the habit of 
associating value with the object desired, rather than with the 


33 


person who desires. Value is an expression of desire, and an 
inanimate object certainly can not have or contain any desire. 
If value were inherent in the matter of an object, then value 
would be something permanent,' fixed, stable and unchangable. 
But who will have the temerity of contending that values are 
fixed or unchangable ? 

To illustrate the fallacy of the “intrinsic value” theory more 
clearly, let us consider some concrete cases. Supposing that 
Robinson Crusoe, during his stay on that lonely island in the 
Pacific Ocean, came across a lump of gold the size of a peck 
measure. Of what value would its possession have been to him 
under the conditions and circumstances in which he was living 
then ? Its outward glitter might have attracted his eye for the 
moment, but otherwise he would have been at a total loss to 
know what to do with it. He might not have taken the trouble 
to transport it to his cave. 

But supposing, on the other hand, that Crusoe could have 
taken this lump of gold to England, or some other country 
inhabited by gold-idolaters; its possession there would have 
invested him with considerable wealth, even tho its form, shape 
and outward appearance remained exactly the same. In one 
place no value, in another place very great value—what has 
wrought the change? There is no change in form, shape, or 
material whatever; the change was not intrinsic, but extrinsic; 
the lump of gold has been brought into a new relation to the 
human family, hence the change in value. In the one place the 
human desire for its possession was absent, in the other it was 
present, accentuated and intensified by the multitude who strove 
to possess it. 

Such illustrations might be multiplied indefinitely with any 
or every material object for a base. Let one more suffice. 
There was a time when our western prairies teemed with vast 
herds of horses roaming at large, the particular property of no 
one. They represented no value whatever, because they were 
not within the reach of any human control. Could they have 
been put to use by any one, they would have been an asset of 


34 


no mean consideration, but nobody could bring them into such 
relations to the human race, and hence they were of no value. 
And so it is with every material object; it is utterly valueless 
unless it can be brot into such relations to man as will enable 
him to put that object to some use. 

That value is not intrinsic , but extrinsic, is revealed in the 
language we use when we discuss the value of any commodity. 
We never say “what value has an object,” but “of what value is 
the thing.” If the value were in the material, we would 
naturally say, “what value has it.” Since the best writers 
and speakers say “of what value is it,” proves that they in¬ 
stinctively feel that value depends upon something external 
to and is independent of the matter in the object under con¬ 
sideration. 



4 


35 


CHAPTER VII. 


THE STANDARD OF VALUE. 

Since value is a mere relation existing between a material 
object or an activity and man, it is folly to speak of money or 
any other commodity as being a “Standard or Measure of 
Value.” When we speak of measuring anything we have in 
mind a comparison of two or more objects in regard to their 
quantity, quality or number. We can only compare things that 
have some common characteristic, such as quantity (bulk) 
quality, number, etc. We can only measure like by like, that 
is, we can measure quantity by some definitely known other 
quantity, quality of any kind by quality of the same kind, 
and so forth. A comparison of quantity with number, or with 
quality, is an impossibility because they differ in their nature. 
It therefore follows that value can only be measured by value, 
weight by weight, volume by volume, etc. As to how we ascer¬ 
tain or determine the extent or degree of quantity or quality is 
immaterial, so long as we follow the same method in both 
cases. Whether we determine the volume of an object, for in¬ 
stance, by weight or by measurement is quite immaterial, so 
long as we follow the same method while determining both the 
measure and the thing measured. It would, however, be un¬ 
scientific were we to apply different methods at different stages 
of the process. In order to obtain reliable results, our standard 
of measurement must be definitely known and unchangeable in 
quantity and quality, otherwise the result of our com¬ 
parison or measurement will be unreliable and deceptive. 
If, in measuring distance, for instance, we should use 
a measure made of such material that varied greatly in its 
dimensions, being longer at one time and shorter at another 
time, the result of our measurement wpuld be absolutely un- 

36 


reliable and worthless. In order to obtain correct and reliable 
results our standard of measurement must be known, definite* 
and unvariable. Only with a true and reliable standard can 
correct and reliable results be obtained. 

Social and political economists have all along maintained 
that money is a standard of value. If this were true, it would 
be possible to accurately determine the value of any commodity 
by simply applying the standard. For instance, if two persons 
differ as to the actual length of a piece of timber the question 
can be definitely settled to the satisfaction of all concerned by 
applying the standard measure of length. But supposing that 
they differed as to the value of said timber, if one should claim 
that its value was two dollars, while the other placed its value 
at but one dollar, no such determination of the actual value of 
the timber by applying the so-called standard of value is pos¬ 
sible. Why ? Because money is not and never can be a true 
and reliable standard of value. Wherein lies the trouble? 
Simply in the fact that the dollar is not a definite and unvariable 
expression of value. At best it can express value only relatively; 
it is at best an elastic measure that varies according to the 
tension under which it is applied. The value which a dollar 
represents to one person may be essentially different from the 
value it represents to another person. An individual in strait¬ 
ened circumstances has but a slight hold on this “meas¬ 
ure of value,” and can not stretch it to that extent another one 
can/who exists under entirely different circumstances. The 
truth is, every person has his own standard of value, peculiar 
to himself, with which he measures money as well as commod¬ 
ities in accordance with his desires and inclinations. Since value 
is only a relation, and since no two persons sustain exactly the 
same relations to the material world, it is evident that no two 
persons will have identical standards of value. Nor is it at all 
essential or desirable that there should be a common standard 
cr measure of value, since every person is slightly different in 
makeup, and therefore the question of value is a purely individ¬ 
ual affair that can not be brot under any common or general 
determination. 


37 


It is not as a measure of value that money plays so important 
*a part in the business affairs of the world, but as a medium of 
exchange. As such it has become an indispensable requirement, 
without which production and distribution could not reach its 
highest stage of development. Yet, in spite of the many ad¬ 
vantages our monetary system presents, there are certain pal¬ 
pable defects connected with its nature and issue which fre¬ 
quently make of it in *the hands of the unscrupulous a means of 
oppression and torture. Owing to the unscientific character of 
our present system of finance, humanity is prevented from 
attaining that high state of civilization which should char¬ 
acterize a truly great people, and until a more equitable medium 
of exchange is introduced greater perfection in production and 
exchange will not be possible. 

The perfect medium of exchange must be shorn of all un¬ 
scientific features connected with the nature, character and 
issue of money as it is in use at present. It should be purely a 
representative of value, adapting itself automatically, as far as 
volume is concerned, to the needs of trade. It should be based 
on the products of labor, the easy and equitable exchange of 
which it should enable, in a manner that will secure to each 
and all the full benefit of their efforts, without compelling the 
producer to share the products of his labor with anyone who 
happens to be in a position to compel such sharing by virtue of 
a control of the medium of exchange. Can such a medium be 
devised, and could a social system, built upon such lines, be 
maintained? I think it could. It will be necessary, however, 
to readjust many of our views and institutions that have en¬ 
joyed the sanction of ages; they must be gradually reconstructed 
and brot into harmony with fundamental principles that are not 
clearly recognized at present. It seems to me a self-evident fact 
that before nature and nature’s God all individuals must be 
equal, that is, my life to me is of as much value as 
your life is to you, and therefore between us a day of 
my life to me must be equal to what a day of your life 
is to you. If nature has endowed you with superior 


38 


powers and talents, it must have been the intention of the 
Creator that you should exert yourself in conformity with 
your abilities. But when' you with your superior abilities do 
your best, and I with my mediocre or inferior powers do my 
best, neither can do more, and we are putting forth equal 
efforts, our best. No man can do more, and whether the results 
be equal in bulk or quantity or not is quite immaterial. When it 
comes to exchanging the products of our labor, we must agree 
on some arrangement; our minds must meet on some proposi¬ 
tion if we would make an exchange at all. What of it, if I am 
willing to exchange what I produce by two day’s labor for what 
you produce by one? If you are willing and I am willing, both 
will be satisfied and justice will prevail. How can this be 
accomplished? Simply by using our labor certificates as a 
means for effecting the exchange as I have suggested in the 
article on Production. If the natural resources were common 
property and open to the equal use of all, and if every individ¬ 
ual had full and exclusive control of the products of his labor, 
the way would be clear for a system of exchange, with the labor 
certificate as a medium, that would at once be free, just and ex¬ 
pedient. The road to a higher civilization would be opened; 
the idea of co-operation, of mutual helpfulness, would supplant 
the now prevalent competition, and an era of good will, peace 
and happiness would prevail. 


39 


CHAPTER VIII. 


MONEY. 

That our financial system, whether we may contemplate or 
consider it from a “gold standard,” free silver, bimetallic or 
fiat-money standpoint, is unsatisfactory is conceded by all 
foremost thinkers. It is at best a relic of barbarism which 
modern civilization has not been able to cast off or improve. In 
all other departments of human progress and civilization 
scientific investigations have resulted in wonderful inventions 
and improvements, but as far as our finances are concerned, 
especially as far as the issue and control of the medium of ex¬ 
change is concerned, we stand today little above the barbarian. 
The eye of the savage is captivated by the glimmer and glitter 
of a piece of ore or a pebble which he covets as an ornament 
and he willingly sacrifices comfort and efforts for the possession 
of a bead or a piece of shining glass. The propensity to dec¬ 
orate his person is the most prominent characteristic of the 
savage, and many of our present fellowmen, who boast of their 
civilization, find it impossibe to emancipate thesmselves from 
worshiping at the same shrine of superstitious folly. It is some¬ 
times difficult to decide whether it he cussedness or stupidity 
that prompts our financial magnates to advance and defend their 
pet money theories, based as they are upon so little of common 
sense and reason. Statistics show that 95 per cent of all ex¬ 
changes in the United States are effected with a substitute for 
gold or silver, yet our bankers contend that 5 per cent of gold 
is sufficient to give stability and protection to the 95 per cent of 
surrogates. It is plain that they either are totally ignorant of 
the rational theory of value, or they lack the moral courage and 
honesty to admit the facts that daily stare them in the face, 
while they gloat over their ledger accounts. How an infinitesimal 


40 


of 5 per cent of gold or silver can give value to 95 per cent of 
fiat money is more than any rational mind can comprehend. 
Let us examine this theory of money a little closer and find out 
what there really is to it. 

Money has been defined in various ways by different schools 
of social and political economists. One defines it as a “Meas¬ 
ure of Value/’ another says “Money Is a Medium of Ex¬ 
change,” a third says “Money Is a Standard of Value,”etc., etc., 
ad infinitum. That money is not a “measure of value” I have 
already shown under the treatise “Standard of Value.” The 
“dollar” having no value of its own, is simply an expression of 
a conception, recorded on some more or less permanent mate¬ 
rial, and it is quite immaterial what that substance is, whether 
it be gold, silver, paper, iron, or rags. The essential thing is 
not the tangible evidence of the conception, but the conception 
itself, and as every individual has an organization of his own, 
varying in temperament and makeup from that of every other 
individual, so his conception of value will vary likewise. There¬ 
fore every individual must necessarily have a standard of 
value of his own, quite independent of the material on which 
the dollar sign may be stamped or printed, but depending on 
his individuality and environment. 

We also find that the purchasing power of money does not 
depend upon the material out of which it is made, but upon the 
number of dollars available for trade purposes, that is, its 
volume, so-called. The more plentiful the supply of money, the 
easier it will be to obtain it, and vice versa. 

For similar reasons money can not be a standard of value. 
As I have shown above, every individual has his own peculiar 
standard of value, which may or may not coincide with that of 
another. The man who can only earn two dollars per day 
places an entirely different value on the dollar than the man 
will who earns ten dollars a day. However, the term “dollar” 
affords a convenient means of expressing value, when the dol¬ 
lar is associated with a day’s labor or some other mental or 
physical effort expressed in terms of duration. 


41 


\ 

Money is simply a token used as a medium of exchange and 
as such represents value only. If all the money were suddenly 
destroyed, or in some way made unavailable, it would not per¬ 
ceptibly affect the wealth of the world; there would still be the 
same amount of material commodities available for man’s main¬ 
tenance as before, but their exchange would become exceed¬ 
ingly difficult and next to impossible. This goes to show that 
money is not wealth, but simply a token representing wealth, 
used as a medium of exchange. 

In order to be an efficient medium of exchange, money 
should have certain attributes. It should be light, portable, 
readily distinguishable, and difficult of imitation? In regard to 
the volume of money, that should at all times be adequate to 
the legitimate demands of trade. Production and distribution 
should govern that automatically so that its relation to popula¬ 
tion and wealth may remain constant, otherwise the fluctuation 
in its purchasing power will work an injustice on either the 
debtor or the creditor. If, for instance, the volume of money 
should be suddenly increased without a corresponding increase 
of wealth or population, the creditor would be injured, inas¬ 
much as he could not buy an equal amount of commodities with 
his money after the increase than he could had the relative 
amount of money remained the same. The opposite would be 
true in case a contraction of the volume of money takes place, 
because then the debtor would be forced to part with more 
commodities to liquidate a debt than he would have had to 
furnish under normal conditions. 

The question now arises as to what material should be 
used in making money tokens. No material should be used 
that is scarce or difficult of production, neither should money 
be made of a material whose commodity value exceeds the rep¬ 
resentative value of the piece of money stamped or printed 
thereon. As soon as the commodity value exceeds the repre¬ 
sented value the money would Cease to circulate, its material 
would be put to ether uses and the volume of money would in 
that way be contracted, and its purchasing power unduly en- 


42 



hanced. Of all the different materials that have been used as 
money material, paper has been found to be the one best 
adapted. It can be produced in unlimited quantities, is inex¬ 
pensive and less bulky than any other material used; besides, it 
has little or no commodity value, and can be easily replaced if 
destroyed. Gold, silver, or any of the metals are not well 
adapted for money purposes, inasmuch as they are too heavy, 
too expensive and, in case of gold and silver, the supply is in¬ 
sufficient. 

Who should issue the money? Aside, from the question of 
expediency, the important function that money performs in the 
world of trade would indicate that it would not be wise to leave 
the issue or control of money to chance or to private concerns. 
There ought to be some scientific plan or system according to 
which this important tool of trade is created and brought into 
circulation. None other than the government should be en¬ 
trusted with so important a function. The abstract principle of 
justice would demand that whenever a commodity is produced 
the medium for its exchange should be issued also, and when 
the exchange has been effected, or the commodity has been con¬ 
sumed, its medium of exchange should be retired and destroyed 
also. But that would be possible only in case the government 
became the custodian of all products of labor that might be¬ 
come objects of exchange. The title of all products of labor 
for which exchange mediums are issued would rest with the 
government until said medium is returned to the government in 
exchange for that commodity or some other commodity of 
equal value. Under such an arrangement no money stringency 
could ever arise; there would always be enough money in cir¬ 
culation to exchange all the products of labor, no more and no 
less. Under such a financial system trade and industry would 
be freed from the shackles now thrown about them by the 
money-power. No one would have to wait until capital offered 
an opportunity to apply his powers to the natural resources, the 
way he has to do now, the natural resources being free and 
accessible to all. Whoever is willing to work would find an 


43 


opportunity, and the medium to exchange the product of his 
labor, provided he desired to exchange it, would be issued as 
fast as he could turn out his work. Trade and industry would 
advance in leaps and bounds, as everybody capable of pro¬ 
ducing any serviceable commodity would become a free agent, 
able to direct his own efforts independently of the good will of 
capital. But until such a development is arrived at the govern¬ 
ment should assume charge of all banks of issue, take control of 
the currency and conduct the banking business in the interest 
of all the people. Both businessman and wageworker should 
have the opportunity to deposit their savings directly with 
the government and to borrow directly from the govern¬ 
ment against good and ample security such amounts as they 
may be in need of, and for which they could furnish ample 
security. The government, not being in the banking business 
for the profit it would net, could lend the money to private 
individuals at a very moderate rate of interest, just high enough 
to cover the expenses of administration; and even if the 
government would pay no interest at all, the people as a rule, 
would prefer to deposit their savings in the government bank 
without interest, rather than entrust it to a private bank, where 
they had to take, with a small rate of interest, the chances of 
losing capital and all. 

Many persons do not differentiate between the purchasing 
power of money and its representative value, consequently a 
maze of conflicting and contradicting theories have been ad¬ 
vanced by the wily and sophisticated. The value of money may 
be contemplated from three different aspects. There is, first, the 
'‘commodity Value,” that is the value of the material or com¬ 
modity out of which the money is made, which may vary from 
nothing to more than its face value; second, the “representative 
or face value," and third, the “purchasing power” or “exchange 
value.” Of these only the face value remains permanent; the 
others are subject to fluctuation of a greater or less degree. 
The commodity value depends upon the ease with which the 
material of which the money is made can be produced or ob- 


44 


tained. If the material is rare or limited in quantity, if it can 
only be produced at a great expense of labor and time, if the 
arts and industries make great demands upon it, then its com¬ 
modity value will be correspondingly high. Money made of 
such material will not remain in circulation very long, because 
its material will be used for other purposes; its volume will 
shrink, and its purchasing power increases as its volume de¬ 
creases in obedience to the law of supply and demand. The 
smaller the volume, the greater its purchasing power, and vice 
versa. A change that tends to effect a change in the volume of 
money in circulation will tend to produce an opposite change in 
its purchasing power. It is therefore a dangerous policy to 
allow a private corporation to control the volume of money in 
circulation, because the opportunity afforded to amass private 
wealth by increasing or decreasing the volume of currency is 
usually too alluring to be successfully resisted by those who 
can wield such power. By a concerted action the banks of 
issue in the United States, the members of the “Money Trust,” 
can create a money stringency inside of forty-eight hours that 
will effectually lock every wheel of industry and ultimately 
destroy all trade and commerce. The people of the United 
States had a drastic illustration of this power of the Money 
Trust in 1893, when, by refusing to extend to the business 
world the usual credits, and by calling in one-half of their out¬ 
standing loans, the banking trust succeeded in creating a panic 
that wrought general havoc with the industry and the commerce 
of the nation and speedily came home to roost in the banking 
institutions themselves, forcing the weaker ones into liquidation. 
But the banking trust gained its object, viz., the repeal of the 
silver-purchasing clause of the Sherman act, altho it took the 
extra session of Congress, called by Grover Cleveland, nearly a 
year to deliver the goods. 

Since money plays so important a part in the welfare of the 
nation, the government is the only party to whom its issue and 
control can safely be entrusted, and the only way in which this 
can be accomplished is by nationalizing the banking business. 


45 


To secure constancy in the purchasing power of the medium of 
exchange is of far greater importance to the welfare and pros¬ 
perity of the nation than the public control of the mails. Yet 
our government has established and maintains a post office sys¬ 
tem, while the more vital issue and control of the currency is 
delegated to a coterie of private corporations, who never hesi¬ 
tate to use the power thus placed into their hands, for further¬ 
ing private gain and loot, and the patient people, who produce 
the wealth, meekly submit to this system of legal robbery. 



4 6 


CHAPTER IX. 


PURCHASING POWER OF MONEY. 

A medium of exchange does not attain to the dignity of 
money until it is invested by law with the function of a legal 
tender. A legal tender is anything representing value which 
the law says a creditor must accept as a satisfaction for a claim. 
It enables the debtor to free himself from any obligation grow¬ 
ing out of a business transaction by simply tendering the 
amount of the claim in legal tender. A circulating medium 
which is not a legal tender is a defective medium, inasmuch 
as its acceptance when tendered could not be enforced, thus 
enabling an unscrupulous creditor to despoil an unsuspecting 
debtor by insisting on payment in some other form of value 
than that represented by the non-legal tender medium. For in¬ 
stance, if a person who has mortgaged his real estate to secure 
a loan should tender a medium, such as United States bank¬ 
notes, which are not a legal tender, his creditor would not be 
obliged to accept them, and could, if the debtor failed to pre¬ 
sent legal tender, insist on the expropriation.of the real prop¬ 
erty. 

Where the value of the property greatly exceeds the value 
of the loan, which is usually the case, an unscrupulous creditor 
might be tempted to take advantage of the debtor’s dilemma 
and insist upon expropriation. 

As has been stated before,, money has a certain purchasing 
value, independent of its face value or its commodity value. 
Usually this purchasing power of money depends upon the 
source of its issue, its character and its available volume. If 
the people have faith and confidence in the institution that 
issued it, the purchasing power will depend entirely upon its 
available volume. An unusually extensive issue may undermine 


47 


the faith and confidence of the people in the integrity of the 
institution responsible for its issue, and thus undermine and 
destroy its purchasing power. This is more apt to be the case 
when money is issued purely as a representative of value, 
whether issued by the government or a private institution. Such 
money has been styled “fiat money.” But all money is more or 
less fiat in its nature, because it is the law that makes it a legal 
tender, and not the material out of which it is made. But 
whether money be purely fiat or not its purchasing power 
ordinarily will depend on the volume available for circulation, 
a larger volume securing higher wages, better prices and 
greater general prosperity than a smaller volume, everything 
else being equal. 

The Constitution of the United States reserves to Congress 
the power to declare what shall constitute a legal tender and 
prohibits the separate states from making anything but gold 
and silver a legal tender in payment of debts. While the| govern¬ 
ment has the power to declare what shall constitute a legal 
tender, yet it has not the power to fix its purchasing power. 
When the people lose confidence in the stability of the govern¬ 
ment, or doubt its ability or willingness to redeem its own fiat 
money, they will refuse to accept it in exchange for their 
property, and its purchasing power may dwindle away, and 
finally disappear entirely, as was the case with the confederate 
currency. In such a case money loses its representative value, 
nothing remaining except its commodity value, because the 
government who issued it has no resources left with which to 
redeem its currency. Such being the case, the money ceases to 
circulate and can no longer perform its legitimate function of 
effecting the exchange of commodities or services. This will, 
however, only be the case when a government has issued its 
currency purely on a fictitious base, and when it represents no 
visible or tangible wealth or property whatever. 

When currency of no commodity value is based upon real 
wealth, when it represents value which the government is able 
and willing to render at any time, no depreciation in its value 


48 


will take place. All money, whether fiat or not, stands in need 
of a redeemer—gold and silver money just as well as paper 
currency. Man’s'wants can not be satisfied with mere money; 
he wants money and will accept money for his services, because 
he has faith that he can at any time exchange his money for 
commodities (food, clothing, and shelter) with which he can 
satisfy his wants. These are the real redeemers of all money, 
whether gold, silver, or paper, and on these all mediums of ex¬ 
change should be based. 

If gold were found in unlimited quantities, or if it could be 
produced with little effort, owners of property would soon 
refuse to accept it x in exchange for their commodities, and the 
golden calf of trade would depreciate in value just like any 
other substance of unlimited supply. The gold dollar would 
then have to be based upon some other value than its own 
material, just as is the case with paper currency at present. 

But supposing there existed but one kind of money, a full 
legal tender for all debts, public and private, on what would it§ 
purchasing powder depend ? Would it depend on the material of 
which it is made or on its legal tender qualities? Unquestion¬ 
ably on neither the one nor the other. The owners of commod¬ 
ities would not consent to part with them unless they got what 
they deemed an exact equivalent, and prices of commodities 
would soar to giddy heights, and trade and industry become 
stagnant and finally come to a complete standstill, unless people 
had faith and confidence in the government and its institutions, 
unless they had good reasons to believe that they could at any 
time exchange their money for commodities. In that case its 
purchasing power would depend entirely upon the volume of 
money available for commercial purposes; the law of supply 
and demand would regulate its purchasing power, the same as 
it controls the current prices of commodities. Bankers and 
brokers understand this full well. They know that under pres¬ 
ent conditions the law of supply and demand governs the pur¬ 
chasing power of money, and they frequently resort to the 
expediency of artificially reducing the volume of money in order 


49 


to enhance its purchasing power. In high finance, so-called, 
brokers corner money the same way that merchant pr,inces 
corner wheat or any other commodity. They are enabled to 
accomplish this because the supply of money is more or less 
limited and can not readily be increased upon short notice. 
Whenever money is cornered all property values drop and 
thousands are driven into bankruptcy and liquidation, because 
the shrinkage in value Of their securities is such that an 
assignment is the only recourse left to them. To show that an 
artificial contraction of the volume of money in circulation is 
possible, let us take the following illustration: Supposing a 
nation of say 75 million people is accustomed to do business 
with an average amount of one billion dollars in circulation. 
Under such circumstances one dollar of money would rep¬ 
resent the one billionth part of the tangible wealth of the 
nation, and at that rate exchanges of property would take place, 
provided the usual amount of money were allowed free circula¬ 
tion. Supposing, however, that a syndicate or'trust manages to 
withdraw from circulation 500 million dollars, either to deposit 
it in some vault (national treasury), or to send it out of the 
country. At once a more or less violent disturbance of trade 
and commerce would become manifest, a money stringency 
would result, that would gradually reduce all prices of prop¬ 
erty, or, in other words, that would advance the purchasing 
power of money until, in due course of time, a dollar of money 
would practically control the one-five-hundred millionth part of 
the nation’s private and public wealth, an amount of wealth 
just twice as great as that controlled by the dollar before the 
contraction had taken place. Property would now exchange at 
this rate and continue to do so until another disturbance of the 
volume of money takes place. By reinvesting the money pre¬ 
viously withdrawn from circulation, another disturbance of 
prices will be produced, inasmuch as the volume of the money 
in circulation is increased and the purchasing power of the dol¬ 
lar decreased according to the relative amount of the increase in 
the volume of the circulating money. Money again becomes 


50 


more plentiful and can be easier obtained, trade and industry 
revive and an era of “good times” is at hand. The syndicate or 
trust who can manipulate by changing the purchasing power of 
money has an enormous advantage over other commercial con¬ 
cerns, as they can buy when prices are low and sell when they 
are high. 

That our financial system can thus be manipulated by the 
banking trust is perhaps its most objectionable feature. The 
fact that the national banks control the issue and circulation of 
their own banknotes, which constitute the larger portion of our 
so-called money, enables them to practicably control the pur¬ 
chasing power of the entire volume of money in circulation, as 
has been demonstrated during the early part of the year 1893, 
when the banking trust of America caused one of the most 
terrific panics ever experienced in this or in any other country. 
In the early spring of that memmorable year the banking trust 
sent out a secret circular to its members asking them to “retire 
one-half of their circulation, call in one-half of their loans and 
make a money stringency felt, especially among the senators 
and representatives in Congress.” This program, however, 
was not fully carried out by the trust, because the financial col¬ 
lapse it created reveberated thru the entire country from end 
to end, and buried many of the weaker banks under its mighty 
wave. But the banking trust accomplished its purpose, the 
repeal, by an extra session of Congress, of the Silver Purchas¬ 
ing Clause of the Sherman Act. This gave the trust a still 
firmer grasp on the financial institutions of the country, in as 
much as they could now more easily control the volume of 
money in circulation, because the uncontrolable silver certifi¬ 
cates would soon be eliminated, and banknotes increased. 
These banknotes are printed by the government, but issued by 
the banks. After the government has prepared these notes, it 
turns them over to the banks, who may or may not circulate 
them, as they see fit. If the banks chuse they can keep them in 
their vaults and thus contract the volume of money, or circulate 
them and increase it. In this wav the banking trust has it in its 


5i 


power to control the purchasing power of money to a greater 
or less extent. 

That the purchasing power of money does not depend on 
the material out of which money is made has been forcefully 
illustrated during the War of the Rebellion, i860 to 1864. 
When Abraham Lincoln was called upon to assume the duties 
of President of the United States, he found the Southern states 
in a state of rebellion against the lawful authority of the nation, 
an empty treasury and no supplies of war with which an 
efficient army might be equipped and sent against the seceding 
states. The life of the nation depended upon vigorous and 
energetic action, and this the government could only render 
after ample supplies of war were made available. To secure 
the means with which the army could be equipped and the 
soldiers paid, Lincoln turned to the Eastern bankers and brokers 
for a loan. “Yes,” said the magnanimous bankers of Wall 
Street, ”we have the gold and will be pleased to let the govern¬ 
ment have the use of some of it at 35 per cent interest per 
annum.” Wall Street thought that for once the government 
was at its mercy, and could not refuse its bidding. But the 
indomitable Lincoln, after a conference with his cabinet offi¬ 
cers, told the money power to go to the proverbial hot place 
with their gold, that the government would manufacture its 
own money before it would consent to pay any such usurious 
rate of interest. Thereupon Congress issued 60 millions of so- 
called demand notes, bearing no interest, and made them a full 
legal tender for all dues, public and private. And then a battle 
royal began, between the rebellious states and the money power 
cn one side and the government on the other, in which the 
government was successful in vanquishing the Rebellion, but 
the money power came out of the struggle on top of the heap. 
Pour days after Congress had passed the bill creating the 60 
million dollars of demand notes, the bankers of New York, 
Philadelphia and Boston held a convention in Washington, 
D. C. “It will never do,” said the bankers, “to allow this paper 
to circulate as money; if we do, it will destroy the market for 


52 


our gold.” They had anticipated the breaking out of trouble 
between the North and the South, and, to be prepared for a 
financial harvest, had carefully hoarded all the visible supply of 
gold and silver then in the country. This bill now threatened 
to completely thwart the nefarious plan of the bankers, prevent¬ 
ing them from gathering the rich harvest they had so carefully 
planned. The situation became desperate and called for im¬ 
mediate drastic action, and so they lost no time in formulating 
a new plan, which was pressed thru congress by the nefarious 
tools of the money-thugs by the most dastardly and despicable 
method imaginable. In order to secure a market for the bank¬ 
ers’ hoarded gold and silver, a law was forced thru Congress 
making the interest on the public debt payable in coin only; 
and, in order that the government might have a gold income, 
the law at the same time stipulated that all duties on imported 
goods must be paid in gold. In order that the paper currency 
might not be used in paying duties on imported goods and inter¬ 
est on the public debt, a law was passed providing that all sub¬ 
sequent issues of paper money shall bear on the reverse side the 
following quotation from the law: “This bill is a legal tender 
for all debts public and private except duties on imported goods 
and interest on the public debt.” .From this time on there were 
two kinds of paper currency in the United States, a small 
amount (60 millions) of demand notes which were a full legal 
tender for all purposes, and an enormous amount of so-called 
“greenbacks” that were a legal tender for certain purposes 
only, they having been demonetized as far as interest on the 
public debt and duties on imported goods were concerned. Now, 
when an importer received a cargo of goods on which duty had 
to be paid, he was compelled to go to the Shylocks in order to 
get that kind of money with which he could pay his duties. 
Mr. Shylock usually was very fussy about handing out his gold, 
but just to accommodate the importer, he agreed to let him 
have the required amount of gold provided the importer paid 
him about three times that amount in depreciated currency. In 
other words, at one time, when the outlook for the government 


53 


was perhaps the gloomiest, the bankers demanded a premium 
of 250 per cent for their gold; that is, a dollar of the depreciat¬ 
ed greenback money would only buy about 35 cents worth of 
gold. Yet at the very same moment, the original 60 millions of 
demand notes were on a par with gold; they were never below 
par, and at one time even commanded a premium over gold 
and silver money. 

But what did the bankers do with the depreciated paper 
currency ? They took it to the government treasury and had it 
exchanged, dollar for dollar, for government bonds, payable in 
coin, which then meant either gold or silver money. After the 
war was over, and the stability of the government had been 
placed upon an unquestionably firm footing, the bankers suc¬ 
ceeded in surreptitiously forcing a bill thru Congress, demone¬ 
tizing silver, thus making those bonds payable in gold only. 
It certainly does not take a great stretch of the imagination to 
comprehend what enormous fortunes the brokers succeeded in 
filching from the people of the United States during and im¬ 
mediately following the civil war, by manipulating the financial 
legislation of the nation. 

Now, what was it, that caused the difference in the purchas¬ 
ing power of the demand note and the greenback ? It certainly 
could not have been due to any difference in the material of 
which they were made, for both were printed on the same kind 
of paper; both were issued by the same authority, printed with 
the same kind of ink; both were signed by the same United 
States officials, and bore the same governmental stamp. Yet 
one commanded the respect and obeisance of the banker and 
broker, while the other was despised even by the rabble. What 
was it that made one a monarch and the other a beggar? It 
certainly was nothing intrinsic , but something extrinsic , that 
caused this vast difference in the purchasing power of these two 
mediums of exchange. Why, it was the law : the law made one 
a full legal tender for all dues and debts, while it demonetized 
the other as far as ‘‘interest on the public debt and duties on 
imported goods’* were concerned. Had it not been for the 


54 


“exception clause’’ printed on the back of the greenback dollar, 
its purchasing power would never have fallen below par, and 
the money-trust could not have fleeced the people of the United 
States out of millions, the way they did by their dastardly 
scheme. The natural wealth of the United States has at all 
times been ample to redeem every dollar’s worth of govern¬ 
ment obligations, and had it not been for the insidious influence 
of the money power the United States would long ago have 
abandoned the idiotic system of issuing interest-bearing bonds 
in place of currency. Any nation that is able to float a bond 
issue and pay both interest and principal when the bonds 
mature, is certainly able and capable to float and redeem, if 
need be, an equal volume of non-interest-bearing currency. 
To claim otherwise is proof positive of either gross ignorance 
or an intentional disregard for truth. 


55 


CHAPTER X. 


GOVERNMENT BONDS. 

The primary purpose of every government is to establish, 
provide and maintain such laws, institutions, and social con¬ 
ditions as are necessary to secure to all of its citizens their 
natural right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When¬ 
ever a government permits laws, institutions or conditions to 
exist and flourish whose tendency is to annul, abrogate or 
destroy this right, such government becomes a curse rather 
than a blessing to humanity. Let us now investigate whether 
the custom of the United States Government of issuing bonds 
in place of legal tender currency is defensible in the light of the 
fundamental truth as stated above. 

When the government is in need of funds for internal im¬ 
provements or for any other purpose that would tax the re¬ 
sources of the government beyond its current income, recourse 
is had to the issue of bonds, by which an unnecessary load is 
saddled on to the shoulders of the producers for the benefit of 
the consumers. This custom has been in vogue for centuries, 
and its introduction, maintenance, and continuation can only 
be accounted for upon the supposition that our representatives 
in both houses of Congress entertain very hazy ideas concern¬ 
ing money and its proper functions, value-theories in general 
and the proper powers and functions of government; or that 
they allow their judgment to be clouded and warped by the 
sophistic arguments advanced by votaries of special interests 
whom they seem to serve. Owing to the manner in which our 
representatives in Congress obtain their offices, the peculiar 
tenor which tends to induce irresponsibility toward their con¬ 
stituents, and the manner and method of enacting laws, our 
lawgivers have developed from obedient servants of the people 


56 


to tyrannical and despotic masters, whose official actions are 
swayed by personal greed and prejudices, rather than by calm 
objective contemplation of public welfare and necessity. Thus 
we find that the gross of our laws and official actions of our 
representatives in Congress, especially those of our senators, 
are controlled by special interests, monopolies, and trusts, 
who are able and willing, if need be, to make substantial 
sacrifices for the special privileges obtained from Congress. 
Altho bonds are an unnecessary burden for the common 
people, and a direct benefit only to the comparatively small 
number of bankers and brokers; yet when the question of 
“bonds” or “legal tender currency” comes up in Congress, 
bonds have invariably won out, because the bankers and 
brokers have the means and the opportunity to bear down 
upon our legislators with “more convincing arguments ” than 
the unorganized mass of the common people. Yet no senator 
nor representative can vote for a bond issue, without stulti¬ 
fying the sacred trust he has sworn to further and support 
at the time he assumed his high office. We can not hope to 
secure better results from our lawgivers so long as we 
allow them to dictate to their constituents, instead of serving 
them, and not until we interpose the Initiative and the Referen¬ 
dum between the construction of the laws and their enactment, 
shall we be able to free ourselves from the shackles thrown 
about us by financial legislation. We shall be compelled to pay 
usurious and unnecessary interest on the bankers’ and brokers’ 
bonds so long as we allow the banking trust to shape and con¬ 
trol our financial legislation. 

The Constitution of the United States reserves to Congress, 
exclusively, the right to declare what shall constitute money 
and regulate the value thereof and of foreign coins. This 
places the control of our monetary system in the hands of Con¬ 
gress. But Congress has shirked its duty in this matter and 
delegated this most important of all governmental functions to 
private banking corporations, who exercise it with a view to¬ 
ward enhancing their own private and corporate interests, 
rather than that of the public. 


57 


Bonds are not legal tender, and consequently no bond issue 
can increase the volume of money in circulation, which would 
enliven commerce and industry by reducing the purchasing 
power of money, or, in other words, by raising the price of 
labor and commodities. On the contrary, every bond issue has 
a tendency to reduce the volume of money in circulation, at 
least temporarily, and thus restrict and hamper trade and busi¬ 
ness of all kinds; because, when a bond issue is sold by the 
government, unless the bonds are sold to a foreign country, the 
money paid for the bonds will leave the channels of circulation 
to be temporarily locked up in the treasury of the government. 
If the bonds go to a foreign country the semi-annual interest 
will leave the country and thus gradually reduce the volume of 
circulating money. The effect on the money market will not 
be so immediate, but in the long run, when the bonds become 
mature, the effect will be even more destructive to the pros¬ 
perity of the nation. 

But, how can the nation avoid a bond issue, when its treas¬ 
ury is empty and funds are needed? Why, bless your soul, if 
a nation’s bonds are valuable, if there is a market for the bonds 
of a nation, that nation’s credit is good, and it could issue and 
circulate an .equal amount of legal tender currency with greater 
ease and with profit to all concerned except the bankers and the 
brokers. Look at the immense savings to the producers of this 
country our government could have effected, had it issued legal 
tender currency in place of interest-bearing bonds during the 
last fifty years ! And certainly no one but an idiot would maintain 
that the government of the United States could not have taken 
care of an equal amount of legal tender currency with greater 
ease and less financial distress than it took to take care of both 
the interest and the principal of all those bond issues that have 
been foisted on us since the War of the Rebellion, to say noth¬ 
ing of the greater prosperity which this increased volume of 
money would have ensured. 

But, some one may interpose, what would be the result 
should the government issue an unlimited amount of fiat 


58 


money? Why, “sakes alive!” exactly the same thing that, 
would happen were the government to issue an unlimited 
amount of bonds. The money would become worthless, the 
same as an unlimited supply of anything else, gold and silver 
not excepted. None but a candidate for the insane asylum 
would advocate an unlimited supply of anything, be it bonds 
currency, gold, silver, or what not. There is a certain limit be¬ 
yond which it would not be safe for any government to issue 
bonds without destroying the value of all its bonds. A govern¬ 
ment bond is considered a safe financial investment only when 
the government issuing it has sufficient visible wealth at its 
command to be able to redeem it; otherwise it can not be floated. 
But if it can float a bond issue, it certainly can coin its 
credit to the same amount in the shape of legal tender and be 
the gainer thereby, as the bond issue would tend to hamper its 
industries, while a currency issue would strengthen them. 

Now, who are the parties directly or indirectly benefited by 
a bond issue? Since a bond issue has a tendency to decrease 
the volume of money in circulation, and since bankers and 
brokers are the persons who are operating directly with the' 
volume of money, % it stands to reason that they can control a 
smaller volume of money better than a more extended one ; they 
are, therefore, the ones more particularly interested in keeping 
the volume of money in circulation as small as possible. Fur¬ 
thermore, bonds are used as a basis for banking; government 
bonds have thus far been the only medium upon which banks 
were allowed to issue their own private banknotes; therefore 
we find the bankers and their allies, the brokers, the insistent 
bond advocates and the vociferous opponents of government 
currency. They are the modern representatives of the brigands 
of the middle ages, who sallied forth from their castle strong¬ 
holds upon the unsuspecting travelers, to exact tribute and toll 
by force of arms. The methods employed by our bankers and 
brokers are, however, a great improvement upon those followed 
by their notorious ancestors in business, in as much as the 
ancient robbers were frequently compelled to risk their lives 


59 


. in carrying out their nefarious occupation, while the modern 
brigands entrench themselves behind their citadels of wealth, 
sending forth their legal tender only to block the wheels of 
trade and industry, and to spread ruin and desolation broadcast 
over the land, unless their , terms of capitulation are accepted. 
Since an issue of legal tender currency by the government 
would increase the volume of money available for trade, thus 
making it more difficult for these modern brigands to control 
the same and levy tribute, therefore the hue and cry against 
government issue of legal tender; therefore the attempt to 
prove by a thousand and one sophistic arguments that the is¬ 
sue of legal tender by the government is rank financial heresy 
that would speedily ruin any government, and that the issuing 
of bonds is the ne plus ultra of all financial wisdom. 

Let us see, however, how a bond issue will affect the com¬ 
mercial and industrial activity of a nation. Supposing that 
the government of the United States concluded to construct a 
canal across the Isthmus of Panama; what would be the needs 
of the government for its accomplishment? Would the gov¬ 
ernment stand in need of bonds ? Why, no; the government 
would need men capable of rendering the right kind of services, 
such as engineers, firemen, laborers, etc.; in addition to this, 
the government would need machinery and material. How 
does the government get these? The men who want United 
States bonds are not ‘the kind of men who are willing and able 
to serve the government ip. any of these capacities; the govern¬ 
ment gets the right kind of men and material by paying legal 
tender money. It is legal tender currency, not bonds, that the 
government needs. But instead of issuing this legal tender 
from time to time, as it will be needed, Congress goes to work 
and issues, say $500,000,000 in bonds, bearing 2p£ to 3 per cent 
interest, the bonds to mature in about 30 years, and the interest 
thereon to be paid semi-annually. These bonds are thrown 
upon the market for the purpose of withdrawing an equal 
amount of money from circulation, so that the government may 
get the necessary legal tender currency with which to buy the 


60 


necessary labor and material used in building the canal. Now, 
just contemplate, if you can, the stupendous obligations this 
idiotic policy of issuing bonds instead of currency will saddle 
upon the shoulders of the people of the United States! Prin¬ 
cipal, 500 million dollars, interest for about 30 years at about 
3 per cent amounting in round numbers to about 450 million 
dollars, together 950 million dollars which you fool voters of the 
United States will have to pay for a ridiculous superstition 
foisted upon you by a pack of scheming sycophants. Oh, but 
the United States has constructed a canal across the Isthmus of 
Panama, some one may interpose, an achievement the benefits 
of which no one can even approximately estimate. While I 
will concede that a canal across the Isthmus of Panama, if it 
ever should be completed, will be of some benefit, yet, even that 
is doubtful, to say the least, as future inventions and discoveries 
may improve the overland traffic and transportation to such an 
extent that the Panama canal may become a back number, even 
before it is completed. The time is not far distant when the 
United States Government, purely as a measure of self- 
preservation, will be compelled to acquire the transcontinental 
railroads and operate them in the interest of the people, and to 
what extent railroad transportation may be improved and 
cheapened by the application of electric or some other power, no 
one can tell. Aside from that, I have shown that the govern¬ 
ment could undertake and complete the construction of the 
“big ditch” without saddling a single dollar’s worth of bonds 
on to the people. 

The contention that such a large issue of currency would 
unduly disturb the financial equipoise of the country, has little 
or no foundation. In the first place, this currency would not 
be issued at one swoop; it would come into circulation gradually, 
as the work on the canal progressed; and, in the second place, 
the government could easily correct any mistake resulting from 
an oversupply of currency by retiring such amounts as may be 
deemed necessary, when it comes back into the treasury of the 
United States in the shape of taxes and duties. The disturbance 


61 


would not be nearly as violent as that caused by an equal bond 
issue, since a bond issue must, for the time being, contract the 
amount of money in circulation, thereby producing a tightness 
cf the money market, which always has a tendency to reduce 
wages and cause hard times. On the other hand, a moderate 
inflation of the currency will tend to inrcease wages and pro¬ 
duce prosperity, whether that inflation results from an ac¬ 
cidental cause, such as the accidental discovery of gold, or from 
an intelligently preconcerted plan, the construction of public 
improvements. The government derives absolutely no benefit 
from a bond issue; the people are better off without it; busi¬ 
ness and industry would flourish better under a currency issue; 
the only class of individuals directly or indirectly benefited 
thereby are the bankers and their allies, the brokers. They are 
the ones who reap a golden harvest, because it will aid them in 
carrying out their game of holdup on commerce and industry. 

But would not the bankers and brokers reap the same golden 
harvest, were the government to issue the legal tender directly? 
Certainly not, they would have no chance to skim the cream 
off the financial milk before allowing it to be distributed among 
the producers of labor and commodities; they would miss the 
450 million dollars of interest on the unnecessary bonds, if the 
government assumed the function of banker and paid its own 
legal tender directly to those who furnished the labor and ma¬ 
terial, not only for the Panama Canal, but for all national work 
of a public nature. 


62 


CHAPTER XI. 


GOVERNMENT OWNERSHIP-CO-OPERATION. 

The proper scope and function of government has at all 
times been a fruitful source of contention between the advocates 
of progress and conservatism. The original conception of the 
duties of government was that of repression. Governments 
were supposed to have no other purpose than that of restrain¬ 
ing the individual from crime, torts and misdemeanor, in as 
much as the idea of selfgovernment was unknown. As the 
father was the sole lawgiver and ruler of the family, so the 
monarch was the sole ruler and lawgiver for the state. He did 
.not concern himself with the way§ and means of providing the 
wherewithal with which the material wants, food, clothing and 
shelter, of his subjects was obtained; that was left entirely to 
the initiative and enterprise of the individuals, while the gov¬ 
ernment confined its activity to keeping order, settling disputes, 
and punishing criminals. As such it was an institution dia¬ 
metrically opposed to the subjects (people), having few or no 
interest in common. It was considered to be the duty of the 
subjects (people) to furnish the means of sustenance for the 
government, and in return the governmnet promised to pro¬ 
tect its subjects from invasion and to maintain order and peace' 
by enforcing its rules and regulations. But since these rules 
and regulations, called laws, were enacted by the rulers them¬ 
selves, the people having no voice in their .construction, they 
were constructed in such a wav that they primarily preserved 
the privileges and advantages of the ruling class, ignoring the 
rights of the people. Thus the special privileges and arbitrary 
claims of the ruling class in course of time came to be looked 
upon as their godgiven rights, and the more of these so-called 
rights the ruling class could claim, the less obligations had they 


63 


to perform or grant to the people. As time passed, the contrast 
between the material condition of the ruling and the ruled be¬ 
came so great that the masses began to question the validity of 
these so-called vested rights, and one by one were wrested from 
the ruling class, until the'actual necessity of a ruling class was 
made a matter of dispute, and the idea that the entire people 
should rule, that is, the abolition of the ruling class, took form 
and shape. With the growth and development of this idea of 
self-government, the scope and purpose of government neces¬ 
sarily expanded also. The idea that repression was the sole 
function of government gave way to the idea that a govern¬ 
ment, in order to fulfil its mission properly, should act positively 
as well as negatively, that it must create as well as repress. The 
old ideas of “government” and “subject” no longer fitted the 
new ideas of “state” and “citizen.” “I am the state,” said Na¬ 
poleon, intimating that up to his time the state was a mere 
conglomeration of laws and forms as promulgated by a sover¬ 
eign, instead of an aggregation of individual citizens, inhabiting 
a distinctly defined area of land. The new thot discarded that 
idea of state and asserted that the people, all the people, inhabit¬ 
ing a well defined territory, constituted the state, and that be¬ 
fore the law all were equal. Rulers and subjects have become 
antiquated terms in the United States, and state and citizens 
have taken their places. The immortal Declaration of Inde¬ 
pendence has established this “new thot” for all times, and no 
amount of bickering or twisting on the part of the so-called 
“imperialists” of our present day can turn the wheel of prog¬ 
ress backwards, and re-establish the old order of things, viz.: 
ruler and subject The imperialists have placed themselves 
clearly outside of the pale of the Constitution of the United 
States, which nowhere recognizes such an anomoly as a subject 
of the United States. 

Discoveries and inventions have changed the methods of 
production and distribution to such an extent, and with such 
rapidity, that government, with its laws and institutions, finds it 
difficult to keep pace. Our Constitution and laws are in a large 


64 


measure such as have been adopted and adapted when industry 
and distribution was still carried on by the “retail” method, 
figuratively speaking, and are therefore no longer adequate to 
the modern “wholesale”/method of production. This “retail” 
method of production of the previous century was based upon 
“competition,” while the modern“ wholesale” method of produc¬ 
tion is based upon “co-operation.” The different conditions of 
production in vogue at present demand that the government 
shall adapt itself to the “new thot” controlling production, by 
assisting and encouraging co-operation, instead of trying to re¬ 
establish the antiquated competition. Co-operation creates, 
builds up, while competition destroys, tears down; the two will 
not and can not mix. Competition is error, evil, and will unti- 
matelydestroy itself;while co-operation is truth,good,and must 
eventually survive competition, in spite of the support competi¬ 
tion is receiving from misguided legislators, who are at present 
attempting to pass laws calculated to regulate national corpora¬ 
tions, and thus save competition. The transition from competi¬ 
tion to co-operation may be long drawn out, and be accom¬ 
panied by more or less violent disturbances, social and political, 
but there can be no doubt as to which system will ultimately 
prevail. 

The co-operative commonwealth is the goal toward which 
the people of the United States are forging, and it is only a 
question of time as to when it shall become a reality. That 
v/ill be as soon as a majority of the people will understand and 
appreciate the principle of co-operation and feel a sincere de¬ 
sire for its consummation. How the transition from competi¬ 
tion to co-operation will eventually transpire, or what inter¬ 
vening phases of industrial forms may take place, no mortal 
can predict with any degree of certainty, neither is it of any 
great moment. Nature makes no leaps or bounds, and so it 
v/ill be safe to predict that the transition will be very slow and 
gradual and that the government must be the leading factor in 
guiding and directing the establishment of co-operation. 

The government of the United States has already ac- 

65 


knowledged the value and superiority of co-operation in the 
establishment of the Postoffice Department, and after the ab¬ 
solute failure of the present attempt at controlling the corpora 
tions, such as the standard oil monopoly, the railroads, tele¬ 
graph and other corporations by rate-regulating laws, has 
been sufficiently demonstrated, the government will be placed 
before the alternative of either owning and operating these 
utilities co-operatively, for the common good of all, or go down 
in an ignoble struggle to maintain a false system of production 
and distribution. Which of these institutions will be national¬ 
ized first is not apparent at present, but before the government 
will be able to take control of any of these, it must have abso¬ 
lute control of its finances. The banking business, therefore, 
is the first that should engross the attention of the government 
as soon as it recognizes that the co-operative commonwealth 
must be established. The municipalization of water works, 
gas and electric power plants will serve the general government 
as guideposts pointing out the way along which the general 
government must travel in its search for a satisfactory solution 
of the problem of national production and distribution. 

There is as yet considerable opposition to the idea pf na¬ 
tional ownership of the utilities, owing to the fact that the 
notion of a dualistic existence of the nation is still in vogue. 
But after the “new thot” that in a democratic republic the terms 
“government” and “people” must be interchangable, this op¬ 
position will disappear, as darkness is dispelled by light. A 
brighter future will dawn, in which the people will learn to 
trust one another, as the laws and institutions will then be so 
framed and constituted that no man can take undue advan¬ 
tage of his fellow man. But this will not be the case until 
the reforms and principles concerning finances and land, ex¬ 
pounded in this volume, are generally understood and ap¬ 
preciated by the people. May God speed the day! 


66 


CHAPTER XII. 


THE AMERICAN IDEAL OF GOVERNMENT. 

When the United States assumed its stand among the inde¬ 
pendent nations of the earth, the national ideal entertained by 
its founders was a somewhat crude and meager one. None 
of the leading statesmen of that time had a clear conception 
of a national government “of the people, by the people and for 
the people,” their conception of an ideal national government 
centered in a government “of the states, by the states, and for 
the states” as Art. II. of the “Articles of Confederation” clear¬ 
ly evinces, which reads: “Every state retains its sovereignity, 
freedom and independence, and every pozt\er, jurisdiction and 
right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated 
to the United States in Congress assembled.” The several 
states only intended to form a perpetual “league of friend¬ 
ship” and reserved to themselves all those sovereign rights and 
powers usually inherent in the governments of independent 
countries, excepting those that were expressly enumerated in 
the Articles of Confederation, and thereby delegated to the 
United States. The national government was to be a compact 
cf states, not of the inhabitants of the territory comprising the 
several states and the source of power and authority vested in 
the general government was supposed to emanate from the 
states, and not from the people. 

In determining questions in the Congress of the United 
States, every state was to have but one vote, irrespective of the 
number of delegates to which a state was entitled; the states 
might recall their delegates at any time, or replace them with 
other delegates at the option of the legislature of the respective 
state. The charges of war and other expenses necessitated by 
the common defense were to be defrayed out of a common 


67 


treasury, to be supplied by the states in proportion to the value 
of lands held by private individuals in the several states, but 
the states reserved the right to determine the manner of levy¬ 
ing such tax. However, Congress soon found itself placed 
before the alternative of either acquiring more adequate power 
to regulate commerce and to replenish the exhausted national 
treasury or go into bankruptcy. There was imminent danger of 
a national shipwreck, and it took all the power of persuasion 
the advocates of a “more perfect union” could muster in order 
to avert the threatened catastrophe. The decentralized form of 
government under the Articles of Confederation proved to be 
inadequate as soon as the great common danger, the War of 
Independence, ceased to exert its influence as a cement, and 
the conflict between centralization and state rights began to as¬ 
sume a more serious character. To remedy the weaknesses in 
the Articles of Confederation a convention of delegates from 
the several states was in sessiqn at Philadelphia from May to 
September, 1787. Here the clash between centralization and 
states rights soon convinced the delegates that a compromise 
between the two diametrically opposed trends of thot was all 
that could be hoped for and that it was easier to devise an en¬ 
tirely new Constitution than to remodel the old one. In his 
letter submitting the new Constitution to the President of 
Congress, George Washington wrote:— 

* * * “In all our deliberations on this subject we kept 
steadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest in¬ 
terest of every true American—the consolidation of our Union 
—in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, perhaps 
our national existence. This important consideration, seriously 
and deeply impressed on our minds, led each state in con¬ 
vention to be less rigid on points of inferior magnitude than 
might have been otherwise expected; and thus the Constitu¬ 
tion which we now present is the result of a spirit of amity and 
of that mutual deference and concession which the peculiarity 
of our political situation rendered indispensable.” * * * And 
in another portion of that same letter he says : * * * “The 
friends of our country have long seen and desired that the 
power of making war, peace, and treaties, that of levying money 


68 




and regulating commerce, and the correspondent executive and 
judicial authorities, should be fully and effectually vested in 
General Government of the Union; but the impropriety of 
delegating such extensive trust to one body of men is evident; 
hence results the necessity of a different organization/’ * * * 

All this clearly shows that the Constitution is a clever com¬ 
promise of two conflicting systems or plans of government, 
and it was perhaps the best that could be devised under the 
conditions and ideals then prevailing, and it certainly was a 
long stride forward in the evolution of the national ideal. Had 
it not been for the slavery question, that persistent and prolific 
bone of contention between centralization and state rights, a 
still “more perfect union” might have resulted from the de¬ 
liberations of the Constitutional Convention. While all the 
delegates had a reasonably clear conception of the source and 
authority of governmental power, yet the notions prevailing as 
to how this power and anthority could best be preserved to the 
people were many and varied. However, two distinct prin¬ 
ciples, opposite in character, seemed to predominate among 
the views expressed by the delegates, and- both centralization 
and decentralization, or state rights, battled for supremacy. 
According to George Washington’s letter, submitting the new 
Constitution to Congress, the advocates of both principles 
made concessions, and so we find the following provisions, 
calculated to secure and perpetuate the principle of state rights, 
incorporated into the new Constitution: 

1. The creation of the Senate, whose chief duty it is to 
guard and preserve the rights of the several states, and 

2. The modus operandi to be followed by Congress in the 
enactments of laws. 

It is evident that the delegates to the Constitutional Con¬ 
vention failed to place the sovereign power in the hands of the 
people, where it must reside in every true democratic form of 
government, owing largely to the contention for supremacy of 
centralization on the one hand and state rights on the other. The 
rift between the two was bridged over by a compromise; but 


69 


as a question is “never settled until it is settled right,” as a 
distinguished statesman expressed himself, so this question of 
centralization or state rights kept bobbing up continually, until 
it was finally settled, once for all, by that mighty struggle 
known in history as the Civil War. In that desparate conflict 
it was demonstrated that a state had no other rights than those 
granted to it by the central government; and that doctrine, 
enunciated by the Articles of Confederation, viz.: that the na¬ 
tional government had only such rights and powers as were ex¬ 
pressly delegated to it by the several states, was annihilated. 

In the light which the Civil War shed on the Constitution, 
it became evident that the Senate of the United States had be¬ 
come an obsolete and antiquated institution. While it is still 
holding with a firm grasp the destinies of the country in its 
palsied hand, nevertheless its utter uselessness is being felt by 
the people more and more. The popular demand for a change 
in the method of electing United States senators is only a fore¬ 
runner of the final demand, which will insist upon the entire 
abolition of the Senate. While this idea, the abolition of the 
Senate, is not sufficiently crystalized in the public conscience, 
yet it will receive additional life and vitality should the demand 
that United States senators be elected by a direct vote of the 
people become a law, and its consummation will only be a ques¬ 
tion of time. When once the senators are elected by popu¬ 
lar vote, the vital distinction between senators and members 
of the House of Representatives disappears. Senators are 
supposed to represent the states, while members of the House 
represent the people. But a state, merely as a state, has no in¬ 
herent interests in the general government; such interests can 
only affect the people of a state, and their representatives in 
Congress should be amply capable of executing the will of the 
people. Under the conditions prevailing since the close of the 
Civil War the Senate of the United States has degenerated un¬ 
til it now practically occupies the position of an attorney for the 
corporations and trusts. It has become the willing tool with 
which trusts and monopolies thwart the will of the people, by 


70 


blocking wholesome legislation and vitiating laws intended to. 
protect the people’s interests. Were the system of enacting 
bills into laws based upon correct principles, were the veto 
power in the hands of ;the people, where it properly belongs, 
instead of the President’s, were our officials in all departments 
of government our servants instead of our masters, there would 
be no more necessity for the institution of a Senate in the 
structural form of government than there is for a fifth wheel to 
a wagon. 

The provisions in the Constitution which prescribe the 
modus operandi by which bills may be enacted into laws, are a 
further evidence of the crude character of the national ideal 
entertained by the founders of our government. Unquestion¬ 
ably they intended to secure to themselves and to their posterity 
a wholesome influence in the shaping and enacting of laws, but 
it would be difficult to devise a method that would more ef¬ 
fectually thwart that purpose than the one they did select. The 
result of their deliberations clearly shows that they had abso¬ 
lutely no faith in the honesty, integrity and ability of the com¬ 
mon people to comprehend, maintain, conserve and protect their 
own interests. Consequently they lodged the sovereignity, not 
in the hands of the people, where it should be, but in the hands 
of their elected officials, who were not slow in taking advantage 
of those opportunities that enabled them to further their own 
peculiar interests at the expense of the dear people. As soon as 
a politician succeeded in obtaining an office, he at once turned 
into a master, and began to assert his petty notions of authority. 
In the rarest cases were his actions impelled by unimpeachable 
motives, and usually, where such was the case, his efforts’ 
were nullified by the combined and concerted machinations 
which sinister influences control, especially in the legislative 
department of the government. The method of enacting laws 
in vogue at the present time quite effectually shuts out all 
direct influence of the common people. No matter how press¬ 
ing the demands for a particular enactment may be, unless 
a representative or a senator can be found who is willing to 


7 1 


I • 

introduce the necessary bill, no legislation can be had, the in¬ 
itiative for all legislation being confined to members of Con¬ 
gress exclusively; if Congress neglects or refuses to act, the 
people have no redress. They simply must wait until they will 
have an opportunity to kick a member out of Congress by elect¬ 
ing some one else. 

But this is not the only objectionable feature; a bill, before 
it can become a law must receive the sanction of a majority 
of both Houses and then be submitted to the President for 
his signature; there is little chance for a bill inimical to the 
special interests, guarded by the senators, of ever reaching the 
President, without being rendered harmlesss by tfyose watch¬ 
dogs of private interests. Inasmuch as the legislators are not 
subject to recall, and their actions can not be controlled by their 
constituents, the wonder is that any bills favorable to the com¬ 
mon people survive the ordeal at all. And yet, in order to be 
entitled to the terms equitable and just, a government must be 
the expression and reflection of the will of all the people, not 
that of a class only. The nomdeplume under which a govern¬ 
ment sails is no criterion of its real character. By enacting and 
enforcing bad and vicious laws a republic may become just 
as despotic as a monarchy. “By its fruits a tree shall be 
known,” and a government is known by its laws and institu¬ 
tions. 

The ideal of American government recognizes the people as 
the real source of all authority and power, and therefore they 
represent that real sovereignity to whom all officialdom mu& 
owe allegience. Nothing can thrust itself between the people 
and the government; legislative, judicial and executive officers 
are not the government, but the servants of the government; 
and in a democratic republic the term “government” and “will 
of the people” must be synonymous—both stand for the high¬ 
est law of the land. It is therefore the duty of our officers to 
ascertain what the will of the people is before taking action 
on any question of vital importance; they are the ones who are 
to carry out the will of the people. The servants of the gov- 


72 



ernment must foster all such conditions, institutions and in¬ 
dustries that make for a higher civilization, especially those 
that are too extensive in their scope for private enterprise. 
There are no limits or founds within which the government 
needs to be confined, provided its execution and control is 
vested in the people. The common sense of the people will 
always find a safe and adequate limit, provided the control of 
the government is safely anchored in the majority, and the 
people have a ready and efficient way of ascertaining and ex¬ 
pressing their will. 



73 


CHAPTER XIII. 


THE INITIATIVE AND THE REFERENDUM. 

The mode of enacting laws adopted by the framers of the 
Constitution, and followed by Congress unto the present day, 
entirely ignores that fundamental principle of democratic gov¬ 
ernment, viz.: that all sovereignty must be vested in the peo¬ 
ple, and in its stead enthrones the sovereignty of the politician. 
The founders of our government failed to establish this most 
important of all principles, because they had absolutely no faith 
and confidence in the common people. The welfare of the 
nation, they thot, could only be comprehended, expressed and 
properly guarded by the rich, the well-to-do and the holders 
of landed estates; the “poor trash” had no business to meddle 
in any way with governmental affairs. The aristocratic ten¬ 
dency of their political ideas is clearly reflected in the provi¬ 
sions of the ordinance of 1787, by which Congress took steps to 
provide for the immediate establishment of a territorial govern¬ 
ment for the “Northwest” territory, now forming the states of 
Ohio, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan and Wisconsin. In that or¬ 
dinance it was provided that the governor had to own a free¬ 
hold of one thousand acres; the secretary, the judges, and the 
members of the council, to have freeholds of five hundred acres 
each; representatives to hold in their own right two hundred 
acres each; and no resident was to be considered a qualified 
elector who had not a freehold of fifty acres. 

The fact that the majority of the common herd did not un¬ 
derstand the tricks of amassing material wealth, and therefore 
remained poor devils all their lives, was to the Fathers of our 
Country reason enough for excluding the plebeians from hold¬ 
ing office or from exerting any influence in the shaping of the 
political destinies of the nation. 


74 


Previous*to the Revolution the political affairs of the 
colonies had been managed by the crown and nobility of Eng¬ 
land. English officers tried to collect colonial taxes and duties 
galore, without even so much as asking “by your leave.” The 
pillars of colonial society smarted under the indignities and 
longed for an opportunity to resent them. They felt that sov¬ 
ereignity rested exclusively on the heads of the English no¬ 
bility, who were loth to share it with the American plebeians, 
even tho the latter were often successful in accumulating quite, 
a respectable amount of material wealth. The Revolution, 
however, wrested the sovereignty from the British nobility, and 
it now had to be vested in some element of the American popu¬ 
lation. By the adoption of the Articles of Confederation an at¬ 
tempt was made to lodge this new American sovereignty in the 
legislatures of the several colonies. The futility of this plan, 
however, was soon revealed, and a new one had to be devised. 
How to dispose of this newly acquired sovereignty had now be¬ 
come a burning question, and the wily Fathers guarded this 
new possession with the greatest jealousy, lest by some secret 
political intrigue it be wrested from them, afid a new species of 
loyalty foisted upon the unsuspecting American people. To 
entrust its keeping to the common people was entirely out of 
the question with the Fathers, since they had no faith nor con¬ 
fidence in the political skill and dexterity of the lower strata 
of society; were sovereignty lodged there, they thot, political 
sharpers and schemers would find it an easy task to dupe the 
people and deliver the sovereignty into the hands of some lurk¬ 
ing royalist. To preclude all possibility of any such disaster in 
the future, the framers of the Constitution finally agreed to a 
plan which left sovereignity where it then was, in the hands 
of the politician, and where it has remained ever since. 

By copying the general outlines of the English government, 
then in vogue, changing the nomenclature, and adding thereto 
a few new features, the wily Fathers launched the Ship of State 
under the protection of the new Constitution, hoping that the 
course of future events might not prove that their suspicions and 


75 


fears had in reality no foundation. Thus unwittingly, perhaps, 
the founders of our government established with the govern¬ 
ment also a ruling class, composed of the scheming politician. 
The undemocratic mode of enacting laws then in vogue in mon¬ 
archical England was transplanted, root and branch, into the 
Constitution, and the principle that sovereignty must be vested 
in all the people got lost in the constitutional shuffle. The pa¬ 
triotic Fathers thot that by making their rulers elective they 
had amply guarded the principle of democracy, not realizing 
that an elective ruler may, under favorable circumstances, de¬ 
velop just as much despotism as one who claims to rule by the 
grace of Almighty God. 

However, the Revolution has brot sovereignty a mighty 
step nearer to the people; it became more diffused and less 
pungent; yet, in order to lodge it securely in the hands of the 
entire people another great change in the Constitution of the 
United States is absolutely necessary. The principle of the 
Initiative and the Referendum must be incorporated into the 
same, and some of the laws and usages of government re- . 
modeled so as to harmonize with this principle, before the 
American people will become truly sovereign,—before their 
elected officials will realize that they are not the masters, but the 
servants of the people, to whom they must be accountable under 
all circumstances. 

What constitutional changes are necessary to establish this 
principle ? Leaving out of consideration at this place the desir¬ 
ability of abolishing the Senate and the Presidency in their 
present form, the Initiative and the Referendum could be estab¬ 
lished by making the following changes in the Constitution: 

Amend Article I, Section 7, paragraph 2, so that the same 
shall read as follows: 

“Every bill which shall have passed the House of Repre¬ 
sentatives and the Senate shall become a law after it has been 
published in the several states at least once every three weeks 
for a period of ninety (90) days from and after the date of its 
first publication. But in case 5 per cent of the legally qualified 
voters of at least one-fourth (%) of the states in the Union, 


76 


during the interim of publication, petition Congress for a ref¬ 
erendum election on said bill, it shall not become a law unless 
the number of votes cast in favor of said bill shall exceed the 
number of votes cast against said bill at such referendum elec¬ 
tion* such referendum election, when demanded by the re¬ 
quired number of legally qualified voters, must be held any 
time within the next six months immediately following the ex¬ 
piration of the interim.” 

Further amend Section 7, of Article I, paragraph 3, so as to 
read as follows: 

“Orders and resolutions to which the concurrence of the 
Senate and the House of Representatives may be necessary 
(except on a question of adjournment) shall be published be¬ 
fore taking effect.” 

In order to establish the principle of the Initiative, amend 
Article I', Section 7, by adding a new paragraph 4, as follows: 

“4. Whenever 5 per cent of the legally qualified voters of 
not less than one-fourth of all the states of the Union petition 
Congress to take up the consideration of a question of public 
policy, or law, it shall be the duty of Congress to incorporate 
the submitted suggestions pertaining to such question or such 
law in a bill and, before adjourning sine die, submit said bill to 
the approval or disapproval of the people in the same manner 
as tho it were a bill that originated in Congress.” 

Article II, Section 1, should be amended so as to read as 
follows: 

“The executive power of the United States shall be vested 
•in a President, who shall hold office during the term of four 
years, and, together with the Vice-President, be chosen by the 
people of the several states by direct vote. But ng person con¬ 
stitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible 
to that of Vice-President of the United States.” 

Repeal paragraphs 2, 3 and 4 of Section 1, Article II, and 
renumber paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 accordingly. 

In order to make it impossible for the Supreme Court of the 
United States to thwart the will of the people, it is necessary 
to deprive the Supreme Court of the power to declare a law null 
and void on constitutional grounds; a new paragraph should be 
added to Article III, Sect. 2, to read as follows: 

“4. Neither the Supreme Court of the United States nor 


77 


any inferior court shall have the power to declare a law, en¬ 
acted by a referendum vote of the people of the United States, 
null and void on the plea that said law contravenes any provi¬ 
sion of the Constitution. In all such cases, where a law, thus 
enacted, conflicts with the Constitution, the Constitution shall 
be declared amended.” 

And in order to give system to the whole it will be neces¬ 
sary to amend Article V so as to read as follows: 

“This Constitution may be amended at any time by a refer¬ 
endum vote of all the people. But no amendment or bill shall be 
declared valid and in force unless said bill or amendment has 
been expressly submitted to a referendum vote, and that the 
number of votes cast in favor of such bill or amendment shall 
exceed the number of votes cast against the same bill or amend¬ 
ment at the election at which said bill or amendment was sub¬ 
mitted to be voted upon.” 

Repeal Article XII of the Amendments in as much as the 
changes in Article II of the Constitution supercedes it. 

The plan of delegating the vote of the people in electing a 
President is unsound and undemocratic; it is simply another 
means for thwarting the will of the people, and should no longer 
be tolerated in a progressive democracy. There are so many 
features in our present Constitution which are altogether anti¬ 
quated, that another constituional convention is a pressing 
necessity. The principal provisions that need revision are: 

1. The abolition of the Senate; 

2. The abolition of the office of President in its present 
form and scope, making the president simply the 
presiding officer of Congress while his executive dpties 
should be distributed among the various cabinet officers. 

3. A change in the method of enacting laws in conformity 
with the contemplated changes enumerated herein; 

4. Limiting and more precisely defining the powers of the 
courts. 

The importance of restricting Congress by constitutional 
limitations is not so essential as the founders of .our govern¬ 
ment conceived it to be when the people have recourse to the 
initiative and the referendum. This principle, when put in action 


78 


will enable the people at all times not only to prevent vicious 
legislation, but to correct abuses that have originated in the past 
and been transmitted to posterity by a false notion of ancestral 
piety. The world ought/to be ruled and governed by the living, 
in the interest and for the benefit and welfare of the living 
generation, and not by the biased views of the dead. It is there¬ 
fore necessary that our Constitution be made sufficiently flexible 
to enable proper adjustment at all times to the varied conditions 
arising from the progress of civilization in general. 


79 


CHAPTER XIV. 


LAWS. 

Laws are enacted and enforced by civilized man in order to 
secure to the individual those rights to which he is entitled by 
virtue of his membership in society. Were man capable of 
maintaining his existence isolated from his kind in time and 
space, the question of rights and duties would never confront 
him, in as much as his activities under such circumstances 
would affect his own welfare only, and no conflict with an 
opposing mind could arise to disturb his peace. In that case it 
would not be necessary to share the bounties of nature with his 
fellowman; no one would thwart his purposes or endanger his 
possessions by any adverse claim; he could support and main¬ 
tain his life and pursue his happiness absolutely in accordance 
with his own sweet will, and under such circumstances man 
would be a sufficient law unto himself. 

But such is not in accordance with the laws of material 
creation. God hath said, “It is not well that man shall live 
alone,” he could not fulfil his destiny under such conditions. 
The allwise Creator has endowed man with attributes and 
capacities which demand for him a social existence; God has 
filled his soul with a longing and a yearning that ever and anon 
compels him to seek the fellowship of his own kind, a fellowship 
that alone enables him to adequately fulfil his destiny, and 
without which progressive civilization would become impos¬ 
sible. Society is the natural condition of man’s existence. But 
as soon as man mingles with his kind, manifold relations arise, 
more or less intricate, which call for mutual adjustment, and 
this forms the essence and substance of all law. The question 
of “Mine and Thine” must be determined and regulated in ac¬ 
cordance with the principles of justice and equity. 


80 


Inasmuch as every right involves a corresponding duty, 
the observance of the latter and the limitation of the former 
becomes the concern of all. Since the efforts of the individual 
do not only affect his-' own welfare, but affect that of the 
community to a greater or less degree as well, it becomes neces- 
. sary that the individual be guided in his efforts by correct 
principles of conduct; he must bear in mind that he is but an 
unimportant unit of the entire nation, and that in his battle for 
existence he owes consideration to the rights of others. What 
may contribute to the welfare and happiness of one individual 
may work a wrong or an injury to society. Society at large 
can not attain to a satisfactory state of peace and prosperity so 
long as a single individual remains in a state of suffering; 
therefore the interests of one become the interests of all, and 
society can not afford to ignore the welfare of .even the smallest 
portion of its organization, no matter how unimportant that may 
seem, for nature will exact her penalty. In his makeup man 
has a twofold nature, he is spiritual as well as material. In his 
struggle for existence these two natures contend for a mastery; 
according to whichever nature predominates in his makeup 
man will be better or worse. When the material nature in man 
predominates he is inclined to be of a selfish, vindictive disposi¬ 
tion, unable to withstand and control the. onslaught of the 
lower passions, the gratification of which will seem to him 
necessary for his welfare and happiness. But when his spiritual 
nature predominates, he will allow himself to be guided by 
nobler impulses and aspirations, such as love, sympathy and 
truth. But even from a purely selfish motive, material man is 
usually willing to submit certain affairs that vitally affect his 
welfare to arbitration, because he hopes thereby to secure a 
“square deal” with greater certainty than by appealing to brute 
force alone, as experience has taught him that, in spite of his 
superior brute force, he himself may in turn become the victim 
of another’s selfishness or cupidity. The observation of and 
compliance with the Golden Rule would be quite sufficient to 
insure peace and harmony in society were all men guided and 


81 


controlled by their higher nature. But the material nature in 
most men is so pronounced and so aggressive that it will not 
permit them to attain to that spiritual sublimity of Him who 
bade us “Do unto others, as you would have others do unto 
you” Many individuals allow their material mind to over¬ 
shadow their spiritual mind to such an extent as to absolutely 
deny the existence of the latter; they are therefore no longer able 
to obey or follow the Golden Rule, but instead follow the rule i 
,of material mind which may be stated thus: “Do others before 
they have a chance to do you” Such wrong views and con¬ 
ceptions are responsible for the wrong and vicious economic 
conditions that make injustice and oppression possible, and the 
false economic relations in turn are potent agents which blur 
and obliterate the clear conception of the proper relations that 
should exist between the producer and the products of his 
labor. This interrelation between erroneous views and the 
vicious results of wrong economic relations has brot about a 
condition which is inimical to the welfare and happiness of 
man, therefore he must appeal to the strong arm of the law to 
right matters. 

But unless the laws themselves are a true rule of conduct, 
based on justice and equity, they will fail of their real purpose. 
To be a true and safe rule of conduct laws must be simple in 
their structure and of a plain phraseology. Complicated laws, 
or laws of obscure meaning, or when they are expressed in 
unfamiliar or unintelligible terms as far as the gross of the 
common people are concerned, must fail of their real purpose 
and simply become implements of oppression and tyranny. 
Common fairness would demand that no exceptions be made in 
the application of the law; the high and the low, the rich and 
the poor; all should be equally amenable to its dictum. In order 
that laws may command a wholesome respect they should be 
reasonably permanent and universal in their application; fre¬ 
quent changes in the character of the law, as well as uncertainty 
in its enforcement, are alike fatal to its dignity. But above all, 
laws must be expressed in language so plain and simple that 


82 


every person of average intelligence can comprehend them 
without the aid of professional interpreters. In short, the laws 
should be an epitome of the combined wisdom and foresight of 
a nation, reflecting in their essence the “will of the people” as 
ascertained by means of a system which enables every individ¬ 
ual to record his judgment for or against their enactment. 

And since the laws should afford all an equal opportunity 
in the struggle for existence, all should have an equal share in 
their enactment. The only method that will secure this is en¬ 
actment by a referendum vote, which affords every individual 
member of the partnership of state an opportunity to approve 
or reject any measure before it becomes operative as a law. 
Vicious measures and measures calculated to secure to the few 
special privileges are unjust and tyrannical in their nature and 
should find no place on the book of laws. Enactment by a 
referendum vote is the only effectual method of preventing 
undesirable measures from being foisted on the people. Every 
proposition thus submitted to the people would be scanned by 
every individual to find out whether it is favorable or inimical 
to his particular interests; if he finds it favorable, he will sup¬ 
port it; if not, he will reject it; and no propostion should pre¬ 
vail which does not serve the interests of a majority. 

The enactment of laws by delegated authority is unwise 
and vicious. No amount of care exercised by the voters in 
selecting their delegates will guarantee an absolutely or even a 
relatively correct use of the delegated power on the part of 
those who have been selected to frame the laws. Aside from 
the natural inclination to lean towards the side on which the 
legislator finds his own personal interest, it is next to impos¬ 
sible for a delegate to know the desires of a majority of his 
constiuents in the matter of legislation, and even where a del¬ 
egate is desirous to serve his constituents he is often hampered 
by the pressure private interests are enabled to bring to bear 
on the adoption or rejection of a measure. Temptations are 
often thrown in his way which none but the most sturdy and 
ruggedly honest are able to withstand. That every man has 

83 


his price is a contention often heard among politicians, and it is 
from this basis that private or special interests advance to 
capture special legislation. The temptations thus thrown 
athwart the paths of legislators by powerful private interests 
inimical to the common welfare often surpass credulity and 
comprehension, and it is not to be wondered at that so many 
unfortunate legislators succumb; the wonder is rather that so 
many are able to resist. This is perhaps the worst feature of 
enacting laws by delegated authority, and its discontinuation is 
an urgent necessity. We have no right, moral or ethical, to 
expose our legislators to such fearful temptations; we should 
remember that they are only ordinary mortals with very human 
limitations and that such conditions and practices. constantly 
crowd them onto that faint line of demarcation that separates 
honesty from dishonesty. “Lead us not into temptation” is not 
simply an idle phrase of the Lord’s prayer; it has a deep signifi¬ 
cation; it implies that the public has no right to shirk its re¬ 
sponsibility by throwing onto the shoulders of the few the bur¬ 
dens which all should bear collectively. Were the laws enacted 
by a referendum vote, no legislator would be tempted to barter 
his vote for filthy lucre or personal advantages, his efforts to 
arrive at a true conception and understanding of the situation 
confronting him would not be obstructed, and the nation would 
receive the benefit of his uncontaminated judgment in all cases. 

It is perfectly proper and legitimate to delegate the drafting 
of all legal propositions to a comparatively small number of 
wisely-selected individuals, chosen for their superior ability and 
sound judgment, but under no consideration should the enact¬ 
ment of laws be delegated. The enactment of laws is one of 
the sovereingn functions of the people which can not be del¬ 
egated with any degree of safety. When a measure is sub¬ 
mitted to the people for their approval or rejection, the individ¬ 
ual judgment of each member of the state is appealed to. In 
order to exercise that function properly the individaul must 
inquire into the merits and demerits of the question submitted. 
How will he do this ? Simply by considering how the measure, 


84 


if enacted, will affect himself personally. In case the measure 
will affect him favorably, he will support it; if unfavorably, n 
he will reject it; and in case it will not materially affect him 
either way, he may allow it to go by default, leaving its enact¬ 
ment or rejection to those more vitally interested. There will 
therefore always be two parties to every proposition, for or 
against, and the party numerically the strongest will determine 
the fate of the measure. This is as close as we can get to the 
matter of justice in a democratic government, the acknowledg¬ 
ment of a majority rule. 

I have stated that a law, in order to answer its purpose, 
should be universal in its application; that is, it should apply 
to all alike. But if all are to observe and obey a law, that law 
must be expressed in so plain and simple terms that all can com¬ 
prehend it. An intricate or ambiguous law must fail of its 
purpose, because not all, nor even a majority can comprehend 
it, and so it can not be a safe and efficient rule of conduct. Such 
laws usually are entirely ignored by the masses until by some 
unfortunate constellation of circumstances the individual finds 
himself entangled in its meshes, when he hastens to consult a 
lawyer or pettifogger in order to obtain relief. On account of 
an overplus of such ill-framed and crudely worded laws we have 
in the civilized world, and especially in the United States, an 
army of so-called lawyers and legal gentlemen, who make a 
handsome living by ostensibly aiding the judges to interpret 
the laws, but in reality by sowing contentions and producing 
confusion which shall enable them to milk both the complainant 
and defendant. 

The pernicious folly of filling our legislative offices mostly 
with lawyers is largely responsible for the intricacies of our 
laws and their unintelligible and obscure verbiage. That our 
laws lack directness and simplicty is amply attested by the 
frequent reversions of court decisions involving comparatively 
simple questions; and while there already exists an altogether 
too cumbersome accumulation of illy-digested laws, our various 
legislative bodies, national, state and municipal, vie with each 

8s 


other in constantly grinding out new ones and repealing old 
ones, thereby increasing the snarl so that not even the specialist 
is able to disentangle it. No wonder that the ordinary mortal 
considers the subject of laws quite above and beyond his com¬ 
prehension and intellectual capacity, and that for him the safest 
way to keep out of the meshes of the law is to dodge it. But 
no matter how spry or agile, figuratively speaking, he may be, 
he will frequently need the aid of the professional juggler (who 
is ever ready to dole out his assistance at so much per folio) to 
extricate himself from some embarrassing situation into which 
his dodging has finally landed him. If the enactment of the 
laws depended on a referendum vote of all the people, special 
laws, unintelligible laws and iniquitous laws would not survive 
the ordeal; the result would be fewer, but better laws 


86 


CHAPTER XV. 


JUDGES. 

The manner in which the laws are being expounded in our 
courts has become quite as unsatisfactory as the manner of 
their enactment. The opinion that a poor man has little show 
of obtaining justice in our courts is quite prevalent. Justice is 
no longer considered free, but is only doled out to such as are 
able to compensate shrewd attorneys for waging long and 
expensive legal battles. The impecunious feel that they are at 
a serious disadvantage compared to the well-to-do whenever 
they are obliged to defend their rights in court. The result is 
that the common people harbor a sort of contempt for “law and 
order,” inasmuch as “law and order” only protects those who 
are able to pay for such protection. In many cases judges are 
influenced in rendering decisions by the financial standing of 
the respective parties before them, as well as by the evidence 
introduced at the trial, and usually such influence is antagonistic 
to the dispossessed. We need not, therefore, be surprised to 
find that the people lose faith and confidence in the integrity of 
the courts and judges and that the majesty of the law is being 
gradually undermined by the unscrupulous actions of the 
wealthy and powerful. No system of government can maintain 
a wholesome regard for “law and order” that permits such 
legal outrages to be consummated as the denial of the right of 
habeas corpus in the case of Moyer, Haywood and Pettibone 
in the celebrated Idaho case. Such cases are responsible for 
much of that lack of confidence and respect which the people 
should entertain for the law, and without which the welfare 
and stability of the government can not be maintained. 

After laws have been enacted and approved it becomes 
necessary to interpret and enforce them. Our Constitution 


87 


provides separate sets of officials for these governmental func¬ 
tions, the judiciary and the executives. Since it is the duty of 
the judges to interpret the law, it is very important that they be 
men of ability, honesty, and integrity of the highest order, 
otherwise they would fail to command the fullest faith and con¬ 
fidence of the people. The question as to how the office of 
judge should be filled has received a great deal of attention by 
the Constitutional Convention. Arguments for and against 
both, election by the people and appointment by some executive 
officer, occupied the convention for many days and finally a 
compromise was adopted. “Judges of the Supreme Court shall 
be nominated, and by and with the consent of the Senate, ap¬ 
pointed by the President of the United States; they shall hold 
their office during good behavior.” As the federal constitution 
does not specifically prescribe the manner of appointing judges 
of the inferior courts, their appointment is governed by the con¬ 
stitutional clause (Art. II, Sec. 2.) : “He (the President) shall 
have power to nominate and appoint, by and with the advice 
and consent of the Senate, all other officers of the United 
States whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided 
for.” They hold office likewise during good behavior. It was 
thot that abler material could be obtained for the judiciary if 
judges were appointed by the President; yet, in order to put a 
check on any antagonism the President might reveal by his 
nominations, the consent of the Senate, the guardian of “states 
rights,” was made necessary to an appointment of a judge. The 
objections to this method of appointing the judges are that an 
appointed judge owes his position primarily to the one person, 
who exercises the exclusive right to nominate, and so might be 
influenced by that fact, a judge being only a human being, 
whose mind is controlled by and is subject to the same or 
similar powers and limitations as that of any other human be¬ 
ing; he can at best give expression only to his own personal 
opinions, and, in the last analysis of a question, his decision 
will reflect his personal views. Without calling into question 
the honesty of intention of a judge to render equitable deci- 

L OF C. 88 


sions, nevertheless, cases arise more or less frequently in which 
the courts seem to go entirely astray. Take, for instance, the 
decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the 
Income Tax Case, where one judge, practically, decided the 
question single-handed, affecting the welfare of more than sev¬ 
enty million people—the nine judges of the Supreme Court 
standing four for and five against the constitutionality of the 
law. When it is further contemplated that the majesty and dig¬ 
nity of the law always suffers whenever a court renders a de¬ 
cision that is at variance with the prevailing views and opin¬ 
ions of the people, we may well pause and consider whether 
or not the contention that judges should be appointed instead 
of being elected by the people, is based on sound principles. 
If you admit the proposition that the people as a whole are not 
capable of judging rightly in matters pertaining to their own 
welfare, you thereby admit that the officers, being a part of the 
people, are not capable of judging rightly either, for a part can 
never be superior to the whole. Taking it all in all, the sounder 
policy would seem to be to elect the judges by popular vote and 
make them amenable and responsible directly to the people. 
Judges as well as legislators are clothed with official powers not 
for the purpose of exercising them arbitrarily, but for the pur¬ 
pose of securing and preserving the welfare of the people. The 
great desideratum of government should be the establishment 
and preservation of such social and economic conditions as will 
secure and ensure the greatest general welfare of the public, 
rather than the enactment and maintenance of abstract theories 
and meaningless formulas; and this general welfare will be 
served with greater fidelity by a judiciary who feel that they 
are the servants of the people, rather than their masters. 

One of the cardinal principles of democratic government is 
the demand that the various governmental functions shall be 
kept religiously divorced. Separate offices have been provided 
by the constitution of the United States for each of these im¬ 
portant functions, viz.: the executive, the legislative, and the 
judicial. The judicial is not to encroach on the domain of 


89 


either the legislative or the executive; each one has a domain 
reserved to itself, and a concentration of these in one official, 
or a single set of officials, is considered too dangerous to liberty, 
as it removes all safeguards of the people’s rights and paves 
the way for tyranny and oppression. Yet certain more or less 
arbitrary assumptions of authority on the part of the United 
States judiciary manifested in recent times, reveal a decided 
tendency on the part of our judges to disregard this fundamen¬ 
tal principle of democracy, and arrogate to themselves powers 
and duties that primarily belong to the legislative branch of the 
government. By rendering arbitrary decisions and by issuing 
injunctions the judiciary has been boldly steering toward the 
open sea of despotism where legal and constitutional barriers 
can no longer interfere. Judges should be prohibited from is¬ 
suing arbitrary injunctions, if necessary, by a constitutional 
amendment; otherwise it will be only a question of time when, 
by their own volition, the judiciary will be able to completely 
change the character of our government solely by means of 
arbitrary court decisions and injunctions. Let the offenders 
suffer the full penalty of the law, and let the law apply alike 
to high and low, rich and poor, but let the law be the emanation 
of a properly constituted law-making body, not simply the per¬ 
sonal view of an individual, no matter how judicious that view 
may be. To permit courts or judges to prescribe beforehand, 
by means of injunction proceedings, what a person shall or 
shall not do, opens wide the avenues to tyranny and oppression, 
and there is no speedier way to undermine and destroy the bul¬ 
warks of liberty and independence; when these are gone, free¬ 
dom will take wings and depart. 

Another erroneous conception that has gradually befuddled 
and benumbed the mind of the American people is the belief 
and opinion that none but attorneys, lawyers, pettifoggers, and 
legal specialists are qualified to occupy the office of judge. 
Precedence and custom have so firmly established this view in 
the minds of the people, that even the educated among them ac¬ 
cept it as a matter of fact. The fact that laws are, or at least 


90 


should be enacted and administered for the purpose of securing 
the greatest good to the greatest number is quite generally over¬ 
looked, and nothing remains in view except its “dignity and 
majesty,” which must be upheld regardless of the consequences. 
The common herd has, therefore, accepted the dictum that 
none but those who have had special training in the art of pre¬ 
varication shall be permitted to interpret and expound the law; 
that an ordinary individual, no matter how well equipped with 
good judgment and common sense, has not the requisite ability 
to distinguish right from wrong, in case he should by the choice 
of his fellow citizens, be elevated onto the bench-. Therefore, 
the common acceptance that only such individuals whose minds 
have been warped, more or less, by legal hairsplitting are com¬ 
petent to guard the “majesty and dignity” of the law as judges 
or court officers. There are, however, many good and valid 
reasons why the bench should not be reserved exclusively to 
the “gentlemen of the bar,” but that a layman might occasion¬ 
ally be permitted to preside in court. It would be a wholesome 
reminder to the “gentlemen of the bar” that the business of the 
court should be conducted in a simple and direct manner, so 
that a person of ordinary intelligence might follow it under- 
standingly; it would tend to emphasize the fact that disputed 
questions could be settled in accordance with justice and equity, 
in accordance with right and fairness, without necessitating a 
financial bleeding of the disputants, and it would also help to 
keep alive the notion that other people, besides the legal frater¬ 
nity, are interested in judicial elections and the interpretation 
of the laws, and that such laws as the common people can 
not comprehend or understand have no business to be on the 
statute books. Laws are enacted for the benefit of the public— 
the people are not here for the sake of the laws—therefore the 
law^ must be so simple and direct that all can understand and 
apply them without being obliged to appeal to legal specialists 
or to pay some one for an interpretation. If laws were suffi¬ 
ciently simple and direct the business of the courts would be 
less intricate and anyone with ordinary abilitv and education 


9i 


could administer it satisfactorily. Neither the Constitution of 
the United States nor that of the state of Wisconsin contains 
any provision restricting the office of judge to lawyers or at¬ 
torneys ; any citizen, when properly elected or appointed, may 
occupy and administer the office of judge, either federal or 
state, and any law which would prescribe a legal qualification 
as a necessary condition for holding the office of judge, would 
clearly come under the designation of class legislation, and 
would therefore be unconstitutional. 

However, it would not be wise to inaugurate any sudden or 
abrupt changes in the matter of enacting and enforcing the 
laws of a country. The institutions of law and jurisprudence 
are largely a matter of growth—an emanation of the foremost 
writers and thinkers. The thread of continuity connecting the 
old with the new should never be forcibly severed. Evolution 
is the law of progress in this domain as well as in the domain of 
natural science. Every stage is the resultant of some previous 
condition and a basis for some future achievement. Progress 
is naturally slow, especially where so large an aggregation of 
individuals are concerned as that of a nation. Even revolutions 
can not materially hasten development, as that depends upon 
the enlightenment of each separate individual, and no measure 
which does not receive the support of a majority can long sur¬ 
vive. Therefore, reforms in matters of governmental admin¬ 
istration follow, rather than precede, the intellectual awakening 
of a people. Written constitutions, designed to preserve the 
rights of the minority and secure stability to governmental ad¬ 
ministration, are usually a hindrance to healthy progress in 
governmental reforms; figuratively' speaking they are an os¬ 
sification of the habits and customs of a past generation, and, 
as such, prevent the ready and timely adjustment of the old 
to the new; they are the strongest element of reaction *and 
conservatism. The welfare and genuine prosperity of a na¬ 
tion can, however, be endangered by too much conservatism as 
well as by too much radicalism; the one leads to stagnation and 
death by inactivity, the other to dissipation and disintegration 


92 


by overactivity. Both may lead to revolution, and are therefore 
alike fatal to the welfare of a nation, which will flourish best 
somewhere between either extreme. In order to preserve the 
nation in a healthy state, as far as its government is concerned, 
its laws and it's constitution should have a reasonable degree 
of stability, yet they should not be so rigid as to make desirable 
changes impossible. Both should react at all times to the will 
of the majority, for only then can Vie old be harmonized with 
the new and such conditions maintained socially and indus¬ 
trially as will ensure the material and spiritual welfare of the 
great mass of the people. In the United States the reforms in 
the administration of government have not kept pace with the 
unprecedented progress of science and industry, and therefore 
our present Constitution and laws are inadequate to regulate 
and control industry and commerce. Institutions and inven¬ 
tions have sprung up which the framers of the Constitution 
could not possibly have anticipated, and therefore our Consti¬ 
tution has been outgrown. In order to remedy this evil, a Con¬ 
stitutional Convention is sadly needed. Congress should make 
immediate provisions for an old-fashioned housecleaning, at 
which the antiquated provisions which now are of no other use 
than to thwart the will of the people could be abolished and 
new ones in harmony with present conditions adopted. As 
the Constitution is the fundamental law of the land, and as 
such it should point the way to a government “of the the people, 
for the people, and by the people,” readjustment should be be¬ 
gun here. By casting overboard two-thirds of the antiquated 
provisions and remodeling the remaining third in such a way ab 
to make it a workable instrument that will respond with greater 
facility to the public pulse, the people would soon create con¬ 
ditions more favorable to their general welfare. 


93 


■ 

. 

. 

. 










i / ,v.' 


v < 



































. 














' • 

























' 






, 












. 
















♦ 












. 



• . . - 




■ V 


























1. 



V • 




v , 






















be '. 


i * . 
















- 













4 




















•> *» 
















































' 














•V 








*b\ 






\ 












* ... 














































‘ •• 























‘ 










* 




> v 







« • 














































































t 






















/• 








































r*' 














































. 

■ 




























'•* • 






































<» 

















- -'A 

■ 

S;i ' ■ - ■ 

* * *?. ' ' l- . 

* 












) 

■ : : •>• -. 

’ I 












































‘ 










* 











: n 

M 









































■ * 

















' 







I 






















►A’ 





















* 




' 






















. 
















* 
















• \ hi 

' r. 

















/ 








\ 






I 


✓ 


« 













LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 027 273 431 8 

















